T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation · ¶75

This time, though, Chief Justice Marshall answered yes. The Judiciary Act, he concluded, purported to give “the power to award writs of habeas corpus in order to examine into the cause of commitment.” Id., at 100. And, he “acknowledged that the writ was sought in the first instance in the Supreme Court.” Pryor 500. But, the Constitution did not stand in the way of the Court’s issuing the writ in the case before it. Though “the mandamus case” of Marbury required that the Court “would not exercise original jurisdiction,” he explained, “that which the court is now asked to exercise is clearly appellate.” 4 Cranch, at 100– 101. He reasoned that the “decision that the individual shall be imprisoned must always precede the application for a writ of habeas corpus.” Id., at 101. In other words, a court had already addressed the issue of the imprisonment, so there was “a cause already…

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