Anson Stewart
@ansonstewart.com
2.5K followers 868 following 241 posts
Analysis + Research, @conveyal.com | Deputy Director, MIT Transit Lab | Massachusetts / California | Transportation PhD 🚲🚌
Analysis + Research, @conveyal.com | Deputy Director, MIT Transit Lab | Massachusetts / California | Transportation PhD 🚲🚌
![Screenshot of p. 21 of the decision linked in the quoted post:
district courts may only grant a writ of habeas corpus “within their respective jurisdictions[,]” and although Ms. Ozturk was in this jurisdiction at the time her petition was filed, she is no longer in the District of Vermont. Ms. Ozturk asserts that the District of Vermont has jurisdiction notwithstanding her transfer to Louisiana based on Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944).
In Ex parte Endo, the Supreme Court recognized an exception to the general rule that a district court only has power to grant habeas relief when the petitioner is being held within its jurisdiction. The Endo petitioner was a Japanese-American citizen who was interned by the government during World War II. 323 U.S. at 284-85. The petitioner filed a habeas petition in a California district court while detained in that district and, while appealing the petition’s denial, was transferred to a detention center in Utah. Id. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner’s transfer to Utah after the California district court “acquired jurisdiction in this case” did not “cause it to lose jurisdiction where a person in whose custody [the petitioner] is remains within the district.” Id. at 306. In Padilla, the Supreme Court recognized that,](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:mjzpnl36q2qchyndlmy33if2/bafkreib3u7h25rxxi32yx67b6426cbjqcl3h5y3u5xr4rkyr2u5ybe2tbu)
