Lexplug logoLexplug

Ex Parte Yerger

Supreme Court of United States
75 U.S. 85 (1869)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases, granted by the Judiciary Act of 1789, was not repealed by the Act of 1868. Repeals of jurisdictional statutes by implication are disfavored, and Congress must use clear and explicit language to strip the Court of a pre-existing grant of jurisdiction.


Facts:

  • Edward M. Yerger was a civilian newspaper editor in Vicksburg, Mississippi, during the post-Civil War Reconstruction era.
  • During this period, Mississippi was under federal military governance as part of a military district.
  • Yerger was involved in a dispute that resulted in his killing a U.S. Army major, who was also serving as the acting mayor of Vicksburg.
  • Following the killing, military authorities arrested Yerger.
  • The military planned to try Yerger, a civilian, before a military commission rather than in a civilian court.

Procedural Posture:

  • Yerger filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, alleging his detention by military authorities was unlawful.
  • The Circuit Court denied the petition and remanded Yerger to military custody.
  • Yerger then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a writ of certiorari directly with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of the Circuit Court's decision.
  • The Supreme Court, by its own direction, limited initial arguments to the sole question of whether it possessed jurisdiction to hear the case.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Act of March 27, 1868, which repealed the portion of the 1867 Habeas Corpus Act authorizing appeals to the Supreme Court, strip the Court of its separate appellate jurisdiction to review habeas corpus decisions from lower federal courts granted by the Judiciary Act of 1789?


Opinions:

Majority - The Chief Justice Chase

No, the Act of 1868 did not strip the Court of its jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Court reasoned that repeals by implication are strongly disfavored in statutory construction. The 1868 act specifically targeted and repealed only the appellate jurisdiction 'authorized' by the 1867 act. It did not mention or affect the independent jurisdictional grant from the 1789 Act. The Court further noted that the 1867 Act was explicitly 'in addition' to, not a substitution for, prior habeas corpus statutes. Therefore, when Congress repealed the 1867 appellate path, the original 1789 path remained intact, preserving the Court's vital role in protecting personal liberty through the writ of habeas corpus.



Analysis:

This decision significantly limits the scope of Congress's power to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction, a power affirmed just a year earlier in Ex parte McCardle. While McCardle established that Congress can make 'exceptions' to the Court's appellate jurisdiction, Yerger clarifies that such exceptions must be explicit and will be construed narrowly. The ruling preserves the Supreme Court's foundational power to hear habeas corpus petitions as an essential check on potential executive or military overreach, ensuring that a path to the nation's highest court remains open for challenges to unlawful detention unless Congress explicitly closes all avenues.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Ex Parte Yerger (1869) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Ex Parte Yerger