Ex parte Yerger

Supreme Court of the United States · 1869 · Federal Courts

75 U.S. 85 (1869)

Updated August 1, 2026

Federal Courtshabeas jurisdictionhabeas corpusappellate jurisdictionJudiciary Act of 1789Act of 1867Act of 1868Circuit Court remand

Facts

The petitioner alleged unlawful detention under color of authority of the United States by military officers for trial before a military tribunal. A United States Circuit Court exercised its original habeas jurisdiction, examined the cause of detention, and remanded the prisoner to the custody from which he had been taken. The prisoner then sought habeas relief in the Supreme Court. The jurisdictional dispute focused on whether Supreme Court appellate habeas jurisdiction existed in such a case and whether the Act of March 27, 1868 had removed it.

Issue

Does the Supreme Court have appellate jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to review by habeas corpus a Circuit Court order remanding a prisoner held under military authority, and, if so, was that jurisdiction taken away by the 1868 statute repealing appeals authorized by the 1867 habeas act?

Rule

Where a United States Circuit Court, exercising original habeas jurisdiction, brings a prisoner before it, inquires into the cause of detention, and remands the prisoner to custody, the Supreme Court may, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, use habeas corpus aided by certiorari to review that decision and grant relief if the remand is unwarranted by law. The 1868 repeal reaches only the appellate jurisdiction created by the 1867 Act and does not repeal or diminish the Court's preexisting appellate habeas jurisdiction under the Constitution and earlier statutes, including the Judiciary Act of 1789.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Richmond, Virginia, federal customs officers detained Daniel Rowan under color of federal authority pending proceedings before a federal administrative board. Rowan sought habeas relief in the United States Circuit Court, which ordered him brought before it, examined the basis for the detention, and remanded him to the same officers' custody.

Rowan then petitions the Supreme Court for habeas relief and asks that certiorari issue to bring up the circuit court record. Which is the best argument that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that when a United States Circuit Court, exercising original habeas jurisdiction, has the prisoner brought before it, inquires into the cause of detention, and remands him, the Supreme Court may review that remand through habeas corpus aided by certiorari as appellate, not original, jurisdiction. The majority rejected the view that review exists only when remand is to civil judicial custody.