T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation · ¶74

Again writing for the Court, Chief Justice Marshall agreed with this approach. He began by explaining that federal courts, as creatures of “written law,” cannot “transcend th[e] jurisdiction” that is “defined by written law.” Id., at 93. “[F]or the meaning of the term habeas corpus,” he said, “resort may unquestionably be had to the common law; but the power to award the writ by any of the courts of the United States, must be given by written law.” Id., at 93–94. So, the question was the same as in Marbury: “whether by any statute, compatible with the constitution of the United States, the power to award the writ . . . has been given to this court.” 4 Cranch, at 94.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.