Page:Jones v. Hendrix.pdf/68

36 The majority’s interpretation also implicates the Suspension Clause. Art. I, §9, cl. 2. The majority admits that, at a minimum, the Suspension Clause protects the right of habeas corpus as it existed at the time of the founding. See. The majority also seems to acknowledge that, in the late 18th century, an individual—even one who had been convicted of a crime—could invoke habeas to raise a “jurisdictional” error. , . Historically, the term “ ‘jurisdictional’ ” when used by habeas courts “meant something much broader then than it means now.” Kovarsky 75; see also Siegel 524. And, importantly, a court lacked “jurisdiction”—and thus the writ could issue—when a person was incarcerated for noncriminal behavior.