Stone v. Powell
"Stone v. Powell" is a significant Supreme Court case decided in 1976 that addresses the rights of state convicts seeking federal relief through habeas corpus petitions. The case emerged in the context of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court ruled, in a 6-3 decision led by Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., that state prisoners could not challenge their convictions in federal court on Fourth Amendment grounds if they had already received a fair hearing in state court on those issues. This decision reinterpreted an earlier ruling in "Brown v. Allen," which had allowed for federal hearings on constitutional issues, but established limitations regarding search and seizure claims. The dissenting justices, including William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, raised concerns about the potential implications for habeas corpus rights. Despite these concerns, the ruling did not lead to widespread restrictions on habeas corpus petitions. "Stone v. Powell" remains a pivotal case in understanding the intersection of state and federal judicial processes regarding constitutional rights.
Stone v. Powell
Date: July 6, 1976
Citation: 428 U.S. 465
Issues:Habeas corpus; Fourth Amendment
Significance: The Supreme Court limited the habeas corpus appeals that could be made to it.
Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., wrote the opinion for the 6-3 majority. Congress had allowed state convicts to petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging their state convictions, despite the general legal presumption that a matter once decided cannot be relitigated. In Brown v. Allen (1953), the Supreme Court had ruled that a state convict could obtain a federal court hearing on any federal constitutional issue. Powell’s opinion reinterpreted Brown v. Allen and held that it did not apply to Fourth Amendment (search and seizure) questions if the state had provided a full, fair hearing on the issue. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., joined by Justice Thurgood Marshall, dissented as did Justice Byron R. White separately. Critics’ fears that habeas corpus would be placed in jeopardy because of this decision were not realized because this ruling was not expanded.
