“It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.”
So wrote James Madison in Federalist 51, arguing for the benefit that the Constitution’s system of federalism and separation of powers would mean for individual rights. On Monday, the Supreme Court affirmed those goods in handing down its decision in Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez.
In the case, two litigants appealed from Arizona’s state courts to the federal system, asking for a writ of habeas corpus. This long-standing writ, if given, is a judicial order to a government to present a person before the asking court for judicial proceedings. Typically, it forces executive officers to hand over and charge those in custody or release them. The two defendants hoped the new judicial proceedings would result in some lessening or overturning of their sentence on claims of ineffective counsel.
By a vote of 6-3, the court refused to grant the writ. Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas argued the litigants had not shown that their particular complaints followed proper procedures for making a habeas claim. These complaints, he admitted, only gave narrow avenues for defendants to appeal in this manner from state to federal courts. Therein, though, lay the vindication of the founders’ constitutional system. The majority held a limit that upheld federalism directly and separation of powers in a more indirect fashion.
The Constitution divides the exercise of the people’s power between two governments, not one. Both the national government and the various state governments make, enforce, and interpret laws. The Constitution draws the lines between them, enumerating certain powers for the national government to act upon and reserving the rest for states to do. Indeed, this is how two sets of governments can operate over the same territory and people without descending into chaos or civil war.
With this understanding, Thomas said that the states take the lead in “criminal law enforcement,” holding the primary and most extensive authority over crimes. As states stood closer to the people and covered less territory on which they could devote resources to law enforcement, the founders thought this the best division of power. This enforcement should be viewed in light of what Madison said in Federalist 51. Just criminal laws protect against violations of an individual’s life, liberty, and property. State trials seek to protect defendants against a wrongful conviction, but they also exist to convict the guilty, a punishment that subsequently protects the rights of the innocent.
While Thomas acknowledges that habeas exceptions exist, he emphasizes the downside to them for state purposes. These downsides track Madison’s concerns as well. It “intrudes on state sovereignty” by undermining the finality state courts should have about their own laws and their own proceedings. It thereby risks undermining state power to “enforce societal norms through criminal law.” What are these norms? They include giving what is owed to individuals, the innocent and criminal alike. Thereby, the court risks undermining the “legitimate interest in punishing the guilty, an interest shared by the State and the victims of crime alike.” In other words, the state and the victims want individual rights vindicated, and states form the main entity to make that happen.
The court’s narrow reading of habeas relief in this case also supports the separation of powers. Congress set up the narrow limits to granting this relief, doing so with respect to state powers in mind. An overly generous articulation of these exceptions would involve judicial re-writing of the law. Here, separation of powers protected federalism, keeping the courts from transforming the issue of crime into a national rather than local matter.
Habeas corpus is an important legal tool that the court should respect to its fullest legal and constitutional extent. But we must respect it as part of the larger system of the separation of powers and federalism. For they all work toward a common — but integral — task, one articulated by Madison so long ago: the protection of individual rights.
Adam Carrington is an associate professor of politics at Hillsdale College.
