Habeas Corpus & Other Latin Phrases in Modern Law

By Adam Doll

You may have heard the Latin term “habeas corpus” mentioned in the news lately. In this article we’ll discuss the definition of habeas corpus, but first: Why is Latin terminology used in the law today? In the field of law (and also medicine) you will oftentimes see or hear Latin words and phrases such as per stirpes, quid pro quo, ipso facto, inter vivos, and the sometimes spicy “in flagrante delicto.”

Why use a “dead language” that died out in the 6^th century, is grammatically complex, and understood by very few people? It’s about those roots. The roots of our current legal system today come from ancient Rome where Latin was the predominant language. Latin terms were used in the law more than 1500+ years ago—a large reason for the resulting carryover of Latin in the law today. Others with more skeptical views may think Latin is used to make people in the legal field sound smarter than they really are, or used so lawyers can charge their clients more by incorporating this “fancy” language. Of course, as a lawyer I prefer to believe the former rationale rather than the latter!

What does habeas corpus mean and why is it important today? The literal meaning of habeas corpus is “you shall have the body”; that is, a judge, or court, should (and must) have any person who is being detained brought forward so that the legality of that person’s detention can be assessed. It is not about a person’s guilt or innocence, but about whether custody of that person is lawful under the U.S. Constitution. Ultimately, habeas corpus relief offers persons protections against arbitrary detentions by local and national governments.

Habeas corpus is highly relevant today as the current White House Administration is desirous of suspending habeas corpus and due process protections for certain persons in the United States (mainly deportation cases). Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it,” which leads to another question: What is the definition of “cases of rebellion or invasion” which would allow for the suspension of habeas corpus in the interest of public safety? Look for our courts to render more decisions in the near future on this hot button issue . . . stay tuned.