Historical and Revision Notes
1948 Act
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 451, 452, 453 (R.S. §§ 751, 752, 753; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 291, 36 Stat. 1167; Feb. 13, 1925, ch. 229, § 6, 43 Stat. 940).
Section consolidates sections 451, 452 and 453 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with changes in phraseology necessary to effect the consolidation.
Words “for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of restraint of liberty” in section 452 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., were omitted as merely descriptive of the writ.
Subsection (b) was added to give statutory sanction to orderly and appropriate procedure. A circuit judge who unnecessarily entertains applications which should be addressed to the district court, thereby disqualifies himself to hear such matters on appeal and to that extent limits his usefulness as a judge of the court of appeals. The Supreme Court and Supreme Court Justices should not be burdened with applications for writs cognizable in the district courts.
1949 Act
This section inserts commas in certain parts of the text of subsection (b) of section 2241 of title 28, U.S.C., for the purpose of proper punctuation.
Editorial Notes
References in Text
Section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, referred to in subsec. (e)(2), is section 1005(e) of title X of div. A of Pub. L. 109–148, which is set out as a note under section 801 of Title 10, Armed Forces.
Constitutionality
For information regarding the constitutionality of certain provisions of this section, as added and amended by section 1005(e)(1) of Pub. L. 109–148 and section 7(a) of Pub. L. 109–366, see the Table of Laws Held Unconstitutional in Whole or in Part by the Supreme Court on the Constitution Annotated website, constitution.congress.gov.
Amendments
2008—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 110–181 amended directory language of Pub. L. 109–366, § 7(a). See 2006 Amendment note below.
2006—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 109–366, § 7(a), as amended by Pub. L. 110–181, added subsec. (e) and struck out both former subsecs. (e) relating to jurisdiction to hear or consider action against United States or its agents relating to detention of alien by Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 109–163 added subsec. (e), relating to section 1405 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.
2005—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 109–148 added subsec. (e), relating to section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.
1966—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 89–590 added subsec. (d).
1949—Subsec. (b). Act May 24, 1949, inserted commas after “Supreme Court” and “any justice thereof”.
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 2006 Amendment
Pub. L. 109–366, § 7(b), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2636, provided that:
“The amendment made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 17, 2006], and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001.”
Treaty Obligations Not Establishing Grounds for Certain Claims
Pub. L. 109–366, § 5, Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2631, provided that:
“(a) In General.—
No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories.
“(b) Geneva Conventions Defined.—In this section, the term ‘Geneva Conventions’ means—
“(1)
the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3114);
“(2)
the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked Members of the Armed Forces at Sea, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3217);
“(3)
the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316); and
“(4)
the Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3516).”
I've got a good grip on legal jargon and the intricacies of legislative texts. The snippet you provided looks like a segment of historical and revision notes relating to the 1948 Act, derived from sections 451, 452, and 453 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed. These notes appear to detail the consolidation of these sections into a single section while emphasizing changes in phrasing and the removal of descriptive but nonessential content, like the phrase "for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of restraint of liberty."
It seems the intent was to streamline processes, ensuring that certain applications were appropriately addressed to specific courts to prevent undue burdening of higher courts. The addition of subsection (b) aimed to establish a procedural framework and delineate the responsibilities of different judicial entities, avoiding unnecessary engagement of higher courts in matters best suited for district courts.
The subsequent amendments in 1949, 1966, 2005, and 2008 reflect punctuation adjustments, expansions regarding the jurisdiction to hear or consider actions against the United States or its agents, and the inclusion of provisions relating to specific acts such as the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and jurisdictional matters concerning detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
Furthermore, there are references to constitutional considerations and the limitations imposed on invoking the Geneva Conventions or protocols thereof in certain civil actions or proceedings involving the United States or its agents. This restriction, established in 2006, specifically bars the use of the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights in U.S. courts or territories.
The legislative history reflected here underscores the evolution of legal frameworks and the intricate interplay between procedural clarity, jurisdictional delineations, and constitutional constraints within the United States legal system.
