Discuss the findings of Ex parte Hull.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Perhaps the clear beginning of the end for the hands-off doctrine occurred in the 1941 Supreme Court case Ex parte Hull. Prior to this case, it was common for prison officials to screen inmate mail, including legal mail. As a result, prison staff were known to misplace petitions and even deny the inmate the opportunity to mail them. In Hull, the Supreme Court held that no state or its officers could legally interfere with a prisoner’s right to apply to a federal court for writs of habeas corpus. The term habeas corpus refers to a challenge of the legality of confinement and is a Latin term that means “you have the body.” A writ of habeas corpus is a court order requiring that an arrested person be brought forward to determine the legality of his or her arrest. In Hull, the Supreme Court ruled that inmates had the right to unrestricted access to federal courts to challenge the legality of their confinement. This was important because writs of habeas corpus were the primary mechanism that inmates had to challenge unlawful incarceration. Without the ability to use this avenue of redress, inmates were powerless to make legal challenges to their confinement.