Society · History

Habeas Corpus: The Right to Challenge Detention

Produce the Body

On 23 October 2026 the full US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled 10–7 that the Constitution does not entitle certain detained immigrants to a bond hearing; the cases reached it as petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, and the Supreme Court has agreed to review the detention law itself. This film explains the old legal tool at the centre of such cases: what habeas corpus means; its roots in Magna Carta and England’s Habeas Corpus Act of 1679; the 1772 case that freed James Somerset; when governments have suspended it, from Britain in 1794 to Lincoln in 1861; the Guantánamo ruling of 2008; how human-rights treaties, Latin America’s amparo and Thailand’s criminal procedure code carry the same idea; and what each side argues in the case now before the courts.

Interactive 3D film9 min1215 to 2026Published 28 October 2026

Watch the interactive film Read in ไทย

Prologue

Society · History

Produce the body

Who checks the jailer?

If the state locks someone up, who checks that it had the right to? On the twenty-third of October 2026, a US appeals court ruled, ten votes to seven, that some detained immigrants have no constitutional right to a hearing on release on bond.

The detainees had come to court with a very old request, one whose procedure England fixed in law in 1679: a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court will now review the detention law itself.

What is this writ, where did it come from, and why do governments and courts keep arguing over it?

10–7: judges’ vote
3 states: Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi

Fifth Circuit, full court (AP)

**A federal courthouse** The steps of a courthouse. The three petitioners, from Mexico and Honduras, had been detained for weeks to months. AI-generated illustration.

What habeas corpus means
From Magna Carta to 1679
When it has been suspended
Each side’s case today

In this film

Prologue

The ruling

Fifth Circuit opinion (Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara, en banc, filed 23 October 2026): the court reviewed grants of petitions for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, held that the petitioners, as “applicants for admission”, are subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), and held that “the Constitution does not entitle them to a bond hearing.” AP via the Star-Advertiser: the vote was 10–7; the ruling covers Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi; the petitioners were two Mexican citizens and one Honduran; the full court had reheard a July 2026 panel ruling that went the other way.

This film explains history and law in general terms; it is not legal advice.

The cell, courtroom, timeline and scales in the scenes are symbolic teaching models, not depictions of real places or people.

Chapter I · Produce the body

Chapter I

Produce the body

A judge’s order to the jailer.

Habeas corpus is Latin for “you should have the body”: in effect, produce the person. It is an order from a court to whoever holds a prisoner: bring that person before the judge, and show the legal reason for holding them.

The judge does not decide whether the person is guilty. The only question is whether the detention itself is lawful. If it is not, the court orders release, or another remedy such as a hearing.

That is different from bail or bond, which is about release while a case goes on. Try it: issue the writ, then decide.

habeas corpus ad subjiciendumthe full Latin name: an inquiry into the legality of a detention (Britannica)

Who is holding this person?
Under what legal authority?
Is the detention lawful?

What the judge asks

Habeas: is this detention lawful at all?
Bail / bond: release while the case continues?

Two different questions

Chapter I · Produce the body

What the writ is

Britannica: habeas corpus means “you should have the body”; the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum directs a judicial inquiry into the legality of a detention. The writ is addressed to the custodian, who must bring the prisoner before the court, which decides whether the detention is lawful (Wikipedia). National Immigration Project: in US immigration cases, a bond hearing is held before an immigration judge, who can set or deny bond; a habeas petition is a separate federal court case asking whether the detention itself is lawful, and relief can include release or an order to hold a bond hearing.

The National Immigration Project is counsel for the detainees in the Fifth Circuit case; its explainer is cited here only for procedure. Try it: issue the writ and watch the custodian bring the prisoner to court, then choose the judge’s finding.

This film explains history and law in general terms; it is not legal advice.

The cell, courtroom, timeline and scales in the scenes are symbolic teaching models, not depictions of real places or people.

Sources: Encyclopaedia Britannica: Habeas corpus (summary); Wikipedia: Habeas corpus (history and procedure); National Immigration Project (Mar 2026): explainer on habeas petitions and bond hearings (counsel for detainees in the Fifth Circuit case)

Chapter II · English roots

Chapter II

English roots

Eight hundred years of “not without law”.

The writ’s roots lie in medieval English law. Its most famous words come from 1215, when King John accepted Magna Carta, a charter limiting the crown.

Its clause thirty-nine says that no free man shall be seized or imprisoned except by the lawful judgement of his equals, or by the law of the land.

It was a promise, not yet a procedure. The writ became the tool for enforcing it.

**A medieval charter** A wax-sealed parchment. Clause 39 also forbids outlawing or exiling a free man except by law. AI-generated illustration.

“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned … except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.”Magna Carta, clause 39 (1215, English translation)

1215 Magna Carta: no imprisonment except by law
1679 Habeas Corpus Act: deadlines and fines

From promise to procedure

Chapter II · English roots

Magna Carta

Museum of Australian Democracy: Magna Carta clause 39 reads “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.” The Fifth Circuit concurrence by Judge Oldham traces the history of the “Great Writ” through Magna Carta, Coke and Blackstone.

Wikipedia (Habeas corpus): historians trace the writ’s roots to the Assize of Clarendon of 1166, not to Magna Carta as was once thought; the first recorded use of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum dates from 1305, and an earlier Habeas Corpus Act was passed in 1640, before the Act of 1679 fixed the procedure.

The cell, courtroom, timeline and scales in the scenes are symbolic teaching models, not depictions of real places or people.

Sources: Museum of Australian Democracy: Magna Carta, clause 39; Wikipedia: Habeas corpus (history and procedure); US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (en banc, 23 Oct 2026): Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara, Nos. 26-50183, 26-50219, 26-50221 (opinion)

In 1679, amid a power struggle between King Charles the Second and Parliament, England passed the Habeas Corpus Act, “for the better securing the liberty of the subject”.

It set deadlines. A jailer served with the writ had three days to produce the prisoner, or up to twenty if the prison was far away, and officials who ignored it paid heavy fines.

It also banned a favourite trick: shipping prisoners overseas, beyond the reach of English judges.

“An Act for the better secureing the Liberty of the Subject and for Prevention of Imprisonments beyond the Seas.”Full title of the Habeas Corpus Act 1679

3 days: to produce the prisoner, nearby
≤ 20 days: if far away
£100 → £200: fines for first and repeat offences by officers

Habeas Corpus Act 1679

**Beyond the seas** A sailing ship leaving a 17th-century harbour. The Act made sending a prisoner to a prison overseas illegal. AI-generated illustration.

Chapter II · English roots

The Act of 1679

legislation.gov.uk: the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 (31 Cha. 2 c. 2), “An Act for the better secureing the Liberty of the Subject and for Prevention of Imprisonments beyond the Seas”, required the prisoner to be produced within three days, extended to ten or twenty days by distance; officers who broke it paid £100, then £200; and sending a prisoner to a prison overseas was made illegal. Wikipedia: it was passed amid conflict between Charles II and a Whig-led Parliament.

The cell, courtroom, timeline and scales in the scenes are symbolic teaching models, not depictions of real places or people.

Sources: legislation.gov.uk: Habeas Corpus Act 1679 (31 Cha. 2 c. 2); Wikipedia: Habeas corpus (history and procedure)

In 1771 a man named James Somerset was held in chains on a ship in the Thames, to be taken to Jamaica and sold. He had been enslaved in America and brought to England.

His godparents obtained a writ of habeas corpus. In June 1772 the chief justice, Lord Mansfield, ruled that Somerset had to be set free.

Somerset walked free. But the ruling did not abolish slavery: Mansfield later said it decided only that a master could not force someone out of the kingdom. But it showed the writ could reach anyone held on English soil.

**The Thames, 1771** An 18th-century sailing ship at anchor on a misty river. The ship holding Somerset was the Ann and Mary. AI-generated illustration.

Nov 1771 Held on the Ann and Mary
9 Dec 1771 Brought before King’s Bench by the writ
22 Jun 1772 Mansfield reads the decision: freed

Somerset v Stewart (History of Parliament)

A master “cannot by force compel him to go out of the Kingdom.”Lord Mansfield in 1785, on what the 1772 ruling decided

Chapter II · English roots

Somerset’s case

History of Parliament (2024): James Somerset was held on the ship Ann and Mary on the Thames, to be shipped to Jamaica and sold; his godparents obtained a writ of habeas corpus, and he was brought before the Court of King’s Bench on 9 December 1771; Lord Mansfield read the unanimous decision on 22 June 1772 and Somerset was freed. The ruling did not abolish slavery: Mansfield said in 1785 that it held only that a master “cannot by force compel him to go out of the Kingdom”.

The film’s line that Somerset had been enslaved in America and brought to England summarises the History of Parliament account.

The cell, courtroom, timeline and scales in the scenes are symbolic teaching models, not depictions of real places or people.

Sources: History of Parliament (2024): Somerset v Stewart, 1772

Chapter III · Switched off

Chapter III

Switched off

In emergencies, governments have paused the writ.

Governments have sometimes switched the writ off. In 1794, fearing a conspiracy linked to revolutionary France, Britain under William Pitt passed an act suspending habeas corpus for eight months, later extended.

When the United States wrote its Constitution, it allowed for this, with limits. Its Suspension Clause says the writ shall not be suspended unless in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

It is the only place the Constitution mentions habeas corpus. Press the buttons to suspend and restore it.

23 May 1794: royal assent
June 1795: suspension lifted

Habeas Corpus Suspension Act 1794 (Wikipedia)

“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”US Constitution, Article I, Section 9

1871: nine South Carolina counties, against the Ku Klux Klan
1905: the Philippines
Second World War: Hawaii

Other US suspensions (Constitution Annotated)

Chapter III · Switched off

Suspending the writ

Wikipedia: the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act 1794 (34 Geo. 3 c. 54) received royal assent on 23 May 1794 under Pitt, citing a “traitorous and detestable conspiracy” amid fears tied to France; it was extended to 1 July 1795 and lifted in June 1795. Constitution Annotated: Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 reads “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it”; it is the Constitution’s only mention of habeas corpus. Other suspensions: nine South Carolina counties in 1871, the Philippines in 1905, and Hawaii in the Second World War.

The scales are a symbol: suspension tips them toward emergency powers and locks the courthouse door. Try it.

The cell, courtroom, timeline and scales in the scenes are symbolic teaching models, not depictions of real places or people.

Sources: Wikipedia: Habeas Corpus Suspension Act 1794; Constitution Annotated (Library of Congress / Cornell LII): the Suspension Clause, Art. I, §9, cl. 2

In April 1861, at the start of the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ along the military line between Washington and Philadelphia.

When a Maryland man, John Merryman, was seized and held at Fort McHenry, Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled that only Congress could suspend the writ. The fort’s commander refused to obey.

Lincoln defended himself: should every other law go unenforced, and the government fall apart, just to avoid breaking that one? Congress authorised suspension in 1863.

After the war, in a separate case, Ex parte Milligan in 1866, the Supreme Court ruled that civilians must be tried in civil courts wherever those courts are open.

**A star-shaped fort** A brick harbour fort at dusk. Merryman was seized on 25 May 1861 and held at Fort McHenry in Baltimore (National Park Service). AI-generated illustration.

Taney: only Congress may suspend the writ
Refused: the fort commander’s answer to the writ

Ex parte Merryman, 1861 (NPS)

“Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?”Abraham Lincoln, 1861 (as quoted by the National Park Service)

27 Apr 1861 Suspension along the military line
1861 Ex parte Merryman: only Congress may suspend
3 Mar 1863 Congress authorises suspension
1866 Ex parte Milligan: civil courts for civilians

Lincoln and the writ (NPS; Encyclopedia.com)

Chapter III · Switched off

Lincoln, Merryman and Milligan

National Park Service (Fort McHenry): Lincoln suspended the writ on 27 April 1861 along the military line from Washington to Philadelphia; John Merryman was seized on 25 May 1861 and held at Fort McHenry; Chief Justice Taney, in Ex parte Merryman, held that only Congress can suspend, and the fort’s commander refused the writ. Lincoln asked: “Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?” Congress authorised suspension on 3 March 1863. Encyclopedia.com: in Ex parte Milligan (1866), about an Indiana civilian sentenced to death by a military commission, the Court was unanimous in the result; Justice Davis held that civilians must be tried in civil courts where those courts are open.

The cell, courtroom, timeline and scales in the scenes are symbolic teaching models, not depictions of real places or people.

Sources: US National Park Service, Fort McHenry: The writ of habeas corpus (Lincoln, Merryman, 1861–63); Constitution Annotated (Library of Congress / Cornell LII): the Suspension Clause, Art. I, §9, cl. 2; Encyclopedia.com: Ex parte Milligan (1866)

The question returned after the attacks of 2001. Congress passed a law barring detainees held at Guantánamo Bay from bringing habeas petitions.

In 2008, in Boumediene versus Bush, the Supreme Court ruled five to four that taking away the writ this way violated the Suspension Clause, because Congress had not lawfully suspended it: the detainees could take their cases to a federal court.

The dissent, written by Justice Scalia, warned that the decision would almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. The split shows how hard the balance between liberty and security can be.

12 Jun 2008: decided
5–4: the vote
Kennedy: wrote for the majority

Boumediene v. Bush (Britannica)

**Behind the wire** A fence line by the sea under a hard sun. The law at issue was the Military Commissions Act of 2006. AI-generated illustration.

“…will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.”Justice Antonin Scalia, dissenting

Chapter III · Switched off

Guantánamo

Britannica: Boumediene v. Bush was decided on 12 June 2008, 5–4, with the opinion by Justice Kennedy; the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which barred Guantánamo detainees from seeking habeas corpus, violated the Suspension Clause. Justice Scalia’s dissent said the ruling “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.”

The 3D bars show the vote counts of the court decisions in this film.

The cell, courtroom, timeline and scales in the scenes are symbolic teaching models, not depictions of real places or people.

Sources: Encyclopaedia Britannica: Boumediene v. Bush (2008)

Chapter IV · Around the world

Chapter IV

Around the world

A right written into treaties and codes.

After the Second World War, the idea went global. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 says that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights goes further: anyone deprived of liberty may take proceedings before a court, which must decide without delay whether the detention is lawful, and order release if it is not. Europe’s human-rights convention says much the same.

In Latin America, Mexico’s amparo, a broader procedure to protect rights against authorities, carries the same idea. In Thailand, section ninety of the Criminal Procedure Code lets a detainee, a relative or anyone on their behalf ask a court to examine an unlawful detention, and the court must order release if the jailer cannot justify it.

“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.”Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 9

ICCPR, Article 9(4): a court decides “without delay”
European Convention, Article 5(4): decided “speedily”

Written into law

1841 Yucatán constitution
1847 Adopted federally (Acta de Reformas)
1857 In Mexico’s constitution

Amparo in Mexico (Rivera León)

**A Thai courthouse** A courthouse with a classical Thai roof. Under section 90 the court examines the petition urgently and may have the detainee brought before it. AI-generated illustration.

Chapter IV · Around the world

A global right

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Article 9: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.” ICCPR Article 9(4): “Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.” European Convention on Human Rights, Article 5(4): lawfulness “shall be decided speedily by a court”. Rivera León: amparo (“protection”) appeared in the Yucatán constitution of 1841, was adopted federally in the Acta Constitutiva y de Reformas of 1847 and consolidated in Mexico’s 1857 constitution; Mexican doctrine counts habeas corpus among its functions. Thai Criminal Procedure Code, section 90 (unofficial translation): the detainee, public prosecutor, inquiry official, prison warden, spouse, relatives or anyone acting for the detainee may apply to the court; the court examines the application urgently and must order immediate release if the custodian cannot show the detention is lawful.

The treaty texts here come from secondary copies (the UN pages could not be reached for this film), and the English of section 90 is an unofficial translation; the Thai original is authoritative. Try it: pick each document in the scene.

This film explains history and law in general terms; it is not legal advice.

The cell, courtroom, timeline and scales in the scenes are symbolic teaching models, not depictions of real places or people.

Sources: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (text, via Statewatch); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 9 (text, OMCT handbook appendix); UK Human Rights Blog: Article 5, European Convention on Human Rights; Rivera León: An Introduction to Amparo (University of Silesia); Thai Criminal Procedure Code, section 90 (unofficial translation, Thai Law Online)

Chapter V · The case now

Chapter V

The case now

Each side, in its own words.

The present dispute began in July 2025, when US immigration authorities began holding people who had entered without permission and now live in the country under mandatory detention, without bond hearings. For about thirty years that rule had been applied only to people arriving at the border.

Many detainees filed habeas petitions. The government argues that people never lawfully admitted get only the process Congress provides. The court’s majority added that a detainee can end the detention at any moment by agreeing to leave, and a homeland-security lawyer called the ruling a big win.

The detainees invoke due process, the right to fair procedures before the state takes liberty: a hearing on danger and flight risk, they say, would cut the risk of wrongly locking people up. Their lawyer said the ruling opens the door to more people being detained for no reason, and a dissenting judge warned of unchecked power to detain indefinitely.

Jul 2025 ICE directive: mandatory detention
Sep 2025 Immigration appeals board upholds it
Jul 2026 Fifth Circuit panel: 90-day limit
23 Oct 2026 Full court reverses, 10–7

How it got here (Law360; AP)

**Waiting** An empty visiting room with plastic chairs. The three petitioners had been held for about three weeks to three months (Fifth Circuit opinion). AI-generated illustration.

A detainee “can do so at any moment by agreeing to leave the country.”Judge Cory Wilson, for the majority, on seeking freedom from restraint

“…unchecked, executive authority to arrest and detain, indefinitely, echoes fearfully from history.”Judge Dana Douglas, dissenting

Government: detention without a bond hearing until removal is decided
Detainees: a judge weighs danger and flight risk first
The question reached court through habeas petitions

What each side wants

Chapter V · The case now

Each side’s case

Law360: the policy began with a July 2025 ICE directive applying mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) to people who entered without authorisation and live in the US; for about 30 years it had been applied only to people arriving at the border, while others could seek bond under § 1226; the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld it in Matter of Yajure Hurtado (September 2025), prompting many habeas petitions. Fifth Circuit opinion: the government relied on Congress’s plenary power over admission and on precedent holding that people never admitted receive only the process Congress provides; the petitioners argued procedural due process and a liberty interest in freedom from physical restraint, saying a hearing on danger and flight risk would reduce the risk of erroneous detention. AP: Judge Cory Wilson wrote that a detainee seeking freedom from restraint “can do so at any moment by agreeing to leave the country”; DHS General Counsel James Percival called the ruling a “big win”; the detainees’ lawyer Ellie Norton of the National Immigration Project said it “opens the door to more people being locked up for no reason”; Judge Dana Douglas dissented.

This film reports each side’s arguments as stated in the opinion and the news reports; it does not judge them.

This film explains history and law in general terms; it is not legal advice.

The cell, courtroom, timeline and scales in the scenes are symbolic teaching models, not depictions of real places or people.

Sources: Law360 (1 Oct 2026): Justices to review Trump’s no-bond migrant detention policy (Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha); US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (en banc, 23 Oct 2026): Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara, Nos. 26-50183, 26-50219, 26-50221 (opinion); Honolulu Star-Advertiser / AP (23 Oct 2026): Court rules Constitution does not guarantee bond hearings for migrants; FOX 4 (23 Oct 2026): Bond hearings not required for detained immigrants, court rules

Other appeals courts have disagreed. By Law360’s count, nine federal circuits had ruled against the government’s reading of the law and two, the Fifth and the Eighth, for it.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case from New York, Rhoney versus Barbosa da Cunha. It will decide what the statute requires, not the constitutional question, and no argument date had been announced.

Statute: what does the immigration law require?
Constitution: what must any law allow?
The Supreme Court will answer the first

Two kinds of question

**The next step** A marble columned court building at dawn. The government is represented by the Solicitor General; the detainee by the ACLU and the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. AI-generated illustration.

No. 26-104: docket number
Statutory: question: what § 1225(b)(2)(A) covers

Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha (Law360)

Chapter V · The case now

Before the Supreme Court

Law360 (1 Oct 2026): the Supreme Court granted review in Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, No. 26-104, from a Second Circuit ruling against the government; the question is statutory: whether § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandatory detention applies to people who entered without authorisation and live in the US. The circuits are split 9–2, with only the Fifth and Eighth siding with the government. Solicitor General D. John Sauer represents the government; the ACLU (Michael Tan) and the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project represent the detainee. No argument date was given. AP: the Supreme Court will consider only the statute, not the Constitution.

This film explains history and law in general terms; it is not legal advice.

The cell, courtroom, timeline and scales in the scenes are symbolic teaching models, not depictions of real places or people.

Sources: Law360 (1 Oct 2026): Justices to review Trump’s no-bond migrant detention policy (Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha); Honolulu Star-Advertiser / AP (23 Oct 2026): Court rules Constitution does not guarantee bond hearings for migrants

Epilogue

Eight centuries after Magna Carta, the argument is not about whether the state may ever hold people. It is about who gets to check that it has the right to, and how quickly.

The old answer is a short order from a judge: bring the prisoner here, and explain. In the months ahead, the US Supreme Court will decide how far that answer reaches.

1215 Magna Carta, clause 39
1679 Habeas Corpus Act
1772 Somerset freed
1861 Lincoln suspends the writ
1948 Universal Declaration
2008 Boumediene v. Bush
2026 Fifth Circuit ruling; Supreme Court review

The writ, in seven dates

Stills and pictures are AI-generated
Scenes are symbolic, not real places
Not legal advice

About this film

Epilogue · Sources

Sources

Every fact in this film comes from the sources below. The chapter stills and pictures are AI-generated illustrations, not images of real people, courts or prisons; the scenes are symbolic. The arguments in the current US case are reported as each side made them. This film explains history and law in general terms and is not legal advice.

Sources: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (en banc, 23 Oct 2026): Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara, Nos. 26-50183, 26-50219, 26-50221 (opinion); Honolulu Star-Advertiser / AP (23 Oct 2026): Court rules Constitution does not guarantee bond hearings for migrants; FOX 4 (23 Oct 2026): Bond hearings not required for detained immigrants, court rules; Law360 (1 Oct 2026): Justices to review Trump’s no-bond migrant detention policy (Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha); National Immigration Project (Mar 2026): explainer on habeas petitions and bond hearings (counsel for detainees in the Fifth Circuit case); Encyclopaedia Britannica: Habeas corpus (summary); Wikipedia: Habeas corpus (history and procedure); Museum of Australian Democracy: Magna Carta, clause 39; legislation.gov.uk: Habeas Corpus Act 1679 (31 Cha. 2 c. 2); History of Parliament (2024): Somerset v Stewart, 1772; Wikipedia: Habeas Corpus Suspension Act 1794; Constitution Annotated (Library of Congress / Cornell LII): the Suspension Clause, Art. I, §9, cl. 2; US National Park Service, Fort McHenry: The writ of habeas corpus (Lincoln, Merryman, 1861–63); Encyclopedia.com: Ex parte Milligan (1866); Encyclopaedia Britannica: Boumediene v. Bush (2008); Universal Declaration of Human Rights (text, via Statewatch); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 9 (text, OMCT handbook appendix); UK Human Rights Blog: Article 5, European Convention on Human Rights; Rivera León: An Introduction to Amparo (University of Silesia); Thai Criminal Procedure Code, section 90 (unofficial translation, Thai Law Online)