This case determined that only Congress can suspend the right of habeas corpus and that Lincoln was defying the constitution when he suspended this right.

This case determined that only Congress can suspend the right of habeas corpus and that Lincoln was defying the constitution when he suspended this right.

• A. Ex Parte Merryman
• B. Marbury v Madison
• C. Plessy v Ferguson
• D. McCulloch v Maryland

Answer: (A)

Habeas corpus during emergencies is decided by Congress, not the President. Ex Parte Merryman takes this idea head-on by examining Lincoln’s wartime suspension of the writ and arguing that only Congress has the power to suspend such fundamental rights. In the case, Merryman had been detained by military authorities and sought release through a habeas corpus petition. The court, led by Chief Justice Taney, concluded that the President couldn’t suspend the writ by himself and that Congress must authorize any suspension. This shows how the Constitution places a check on executive power, ensuring that critical civil liberties aren’t casually limited without legislative involvement, even in times of crisis. That focus is what sets this case apart from the others. Marbury v Madison is about judicial review, the authority of courts to strike down laws that conflict with the Constitution. Plessy v Ferguson deals with racial segregation and the doctrine of “separate but equal.” McCulloch v Maryland addresses federal versus state power and implied constitutional powers. None of those directly addresses who has the authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus.

Habeas corpus during emergencies is decided by Congress, not the President. Ex Parte Merryman takes this idea head-on by examining Lincoln’s wartime suspension of the writ and arguing that only Congress has the power to suspend such fundamental rights. In the case, Merryman had been detained by military authorities and sought release through a habeas corpus petition. The court, led by Chief Justice Taney, concluded that the President couldn’t suspend the writ by himself and that Congress must authorize any suspension. This shows how the Constitution places a check on executive power, ensuring that critical civil liberties aren’t casually limited without legislative involvement, even in times of crisis.

That focus is what sets this case apart from the others. Marbury v Madison is about judicial review, the authority of courts to strike down laws that conflict with the Constitution. Plessy v Ferguson deals with racial segregation and the doctrine of “separate but equal.” McCulloch v Maryland addresses federal versus state power and implied constitutional powers. None of those directly addresses who has the authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus.