In the Matter of Alois Muhlbauer

Background

A large group of individuals filed applications that the Court treated as motions for leave to file original writs of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court. The applications are listed by name in the opinion and were presented together as requests to begin original proceedings in this Court. The matter reached the Justices for a decision on whether the Court should allow those original petitions to be filed and heard.

Reasoning

The Court denied leave to file the petitions. The Chief Justice and three other Justices concluded there was a want of jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution and cited earlier cases to support that view. Four other Justices disagreed about procedure and thought the Court should hear oral argument on the motions to decide what remedy, if any, the applicants might have. One Justice did not take part in the decision. The opinion thus resolves the immediate procedural question by refusing permission to proceed here as original habeas matters.

Real world impact

As a practical matter, the ruling prevents these applicants from bringing their claims to the Supreme Court as original habeas petitions. The denial rests on the Court’s conclusion about its power to act, so the applicants must look to other courts or procedures for relief. Because four Justices wanted argument to explore possible remedies, the ultimate availability of other relief was left unsettled and could be considered elsewhere.

Dissents or concurrances

The split among the Justices is important: four Justices would have allowed argument to determine any available remedies, while the majority concluded the Court lacked jurisdiction to proceed.