Jones v. Cunningham

{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}

{{Infobox SCOTUS case

| Litigants = Jones v. Cunningham

| ArgueDate = December 3

| ArgueYear = 1962

| DecideDate = January 14

| DecideYear = 1963

| FullName = Jones v. Cunningham

| USVol = 371

| USPage = 236

| ParallelCitations = 83 S. Ct. 373; 9 L. Ed. 2d 285; 1963 U.S. LEXIS 2261

| Prior = 297 F.2d [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/297/851/457496/ 851] (4th Cir. 1962); 313 F.2d [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/313/347/318000/ 347] (4th Cir. 1963)

| Subsequent =

| Holding = A state prisoner who has been placed on parole, under the "custody and control" of a parole board, is "in custody" within the meaning of {{usc|28|2241}}; and, on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a Federal District Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine his charge that his state sentence was imposed in violation of the Federal Constitution.

| Majority = Black

| JoinMajority = unanimous

| Concurrence =

| JoinConcurrence =

| Concurrence2 =

| JoinConcurrence2 =

| Concurrence/Dissent =

| JoinConcurrence/Dissent =

| Dissent =

| JoinDissent =

| Dissent2 =

| JoinDissent2 =

| LawsApplied = 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

|Overturned previous case= Pervear v. Massachusetts (1867)

}}

{{wikisource}}

Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (1963), was a Supreme Court case in which the court first ruled that state inmates had the right to file a writ of habeas corpus challenging both the legality and the conditions of their imprisonment.{{ussc|name=Jones v. Cunningham|volume=371|page=236|year=1963}}. Prior to this, starting with Pervear v. Massachusetts, 72 U.S. 475 (1866),{{ussc|name=Pervear v. Massachusetts|72|475|1866}}. the court had maintained a "hands off" policy regarding federal interference with state incarceration policies and practices, maintaining that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.{{cite web |author= |year= |url=http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html |title=Constitutional Topic: The Bill of Rights |publisher=U.S. Constitution Online |access-date=2007-12-10 }} Subsequently, in Cooper v. Pate (1964),{{ussc|name=Cooper v. Pate|volume=378|page=546|pin=|year=1964}}. an inmate successfully obtained standing to challenge the denial of his right to practice his religion through a habeas corpus writ.