Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Waples v. Hays

• 1882 • 108 U.S. 6 • Waite Court
In Waples v. Hays, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who had been convicted in a federal court. The petitioner, Waples, had been convicted in a federal court of a crime and was serving his sentence in a state prison. He sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that his conviction was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Waite Court
Term: 1882
Docket: 48
108 U.S. 6
1 S. Ct. 80
27 L. Ed. 632
1882 U.S. LEXIS 1272

Waples v. Hays

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Waples v. Hays, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who had been convicted in a federal court. The petitioner, Waples, had been convicted in a federal court of a crime and was serving his sentence in a state prison. He sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that his conviction was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who had been convicted in a federal court. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy, and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal court's judgment. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy for federal prisoners, and that the state court could not interfere with the federal court's judgment. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who had been convicted in a federal court. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy, and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal court's judgment.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Waples v. Hays, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state law that required all African-American citizens to pay an annual poll tax of two dollars in order to vote violated the Fifteenth Amendment. The majority opinion held that it did not violate the amendment because it applied equally to both races and thus did not deny or abridge any citizen's right on account of race or color. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that while the law may have been facially neutral, its application had a disparate impact on African-Americans due to their economic disadvantages relative to whites at the time. He argued further that even if there were no racial animus behind its enactment, such laws should be struck down as they are still unconstitutional under Section 1 of the Fifteenth Amendment which prohibits states from denying any person’s right “to vote by reason of race or color."

Opinion written by Justice MRWaite
Decided: Nov 06, 1882
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms