JONES
v.
PERKINS, DEPUTY UNITED STATES MARSHAL, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Jones was arrested for failure to register under the Selective Draft Law of 1917 and sought habeas corpus relief, arguing the statute was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of his petition, holding that the Selective Draft Law was constitutional based on its decision the same day in Arver v. United States, and that habeas corpus should not be granted in advance of trial absent exceptional circumstances.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court.
Jones, the appellant, was arrested under a warrant charging him with a failure to register as required by the Act of Congress of May 18, 1917, known as the Selective Draft Law, (c. 15, 40 Stat. 76), and after a hearing by a United States Commissioner was committed to custody to await the ensuing term of the United States District Court. Alleging that he was illegally restrained because the statute under the assumed authority of which he was held was repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, he petitioned the court below for a writ of habeas corpus. Following a rule to show cause and a hearing on the return thereto, the petition was denied on the ground that the statute was constitutional (243 Fed. Rep. 997), and to reverse the order so adjudging this direct appeal was prosecuted.
It is well settled that in the absence of exceptional circumstances in criminal cases the regular judicial procedure should be followed and habeas corpus should not be granted in advance of a trial. Riggins v. United States, 199 U. S. 547; Glasgow v. Moyer, 225 U. S. 420; Johnson v. Hoy, 227 U. S. 245. If that rule applied, therefore, our duty would be to affirm, unless this case could be treated as coming within the exceptional class. But we do not deem it necessary to enter into that consideration because, even if it were found to be embraced in such class, every constitutional question relied upon has been this day in Arver v. United States, [the Selective Draft Law Cases,] ante, 366, decided to be without merit. Because of this situation, therefore, without departing from the general principle, we think it suffices in this case to apply the ruling made in the Arver Case and, for the reasons stated in the opinion therein, to affirm.
And it is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (33 total)
-
United States v. Manton, 107 F.2d 834 (2d Cir. 1938)…ion unless followed by some overt act), whether the object of the conspiracy ever was consummated, or, if consummated, whether the result, considered apart, was conformable to law or the reverse. See Goldman v. United States, 245 U.S. 474, 476, 477, 38 S.Ct. 166, 62 L.Ed. 410. The conspiracy here contemplated the payment of money to induce a judge to exercise his judicial power in favor of the bribe-givers, without regard to the merits. If the decisions finally rendered in pursuance of the conspiracy be le…
-
Ex parte Hudgings, 249 U.S. 378 (U.S. 1919)…e purpose of obtaining relief by resort to the original jurisdiction of this court. Ex parte [*380] Royal, 117 U. S. 254; Riggins v. United States, 199 U. S. 547; Glasgow v. Moyer, 225 U. S. 420, 428; Johnson v. Hoy, 227 U. S. 245; Jones v. Perkins, 245 U. S. 390; Re Mirzan, 119 U. S. 584; Re Huntington, 137 U. S. 63. Whether, however, definitively the case is of such exceptional character must depend upon an analysis of the merits, which we.now proceed to make upon the petition, the return, argument for the…
-
Marino v. United States, 91 F.2d 691 (9th Cir. 1937)…L.Ed. 539; Stack v. United States (C.C.A. 9) 27 F.(2d) 16, 17; We [*696] niger v. United States (C.C.A., 9) 47 F.(2d) 692, 693. Williamson v. United States, 207 U.S. 425, 447, 28 S.Ct. 163, 52 L.Ed. 278; Goldman v. United States, 245 U.S. 474, 477, 38 S.Ct. 166, 62 L.Ed. 410; Heskett v. United States (C.C.A. 9) 58 F.(2d) 897, 902, certiorari denied 287 U.S. 643, 53 S.Ct. 89, 77 L.Ed. 556. Hagen v. United States (C.C.A. 9) 268 F. 344. Coates v. United States (C.C.A. 9) 59 F.(2d) 173, 174; Johnson v. Unite…
Previewing 3 of 33 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Glasgow v. Moyer, 225 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1912)
- Johnson v. Hoy, 227 U.S. 245 (U.S. 1913)
- Riggins v. United States, 199 U.S. 547 (U.S. 1905)