Winklespecht v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole

In this decision the Court, upon petition for a writ of habeas corpus, proceeds to review the Petitioner’s constitutional challenge to the denial of his application for parole.1 After concluding that there is no merit to Petitioner’s underlying claim, and correspondingly that no relief is due, the majority then states that “we leave for another day the question of the propriety of habeas corpus as a remedy.” Majority Opinion, at 692. I believe that this approach may have unintended consequences.

*694Recourse to the writ of habeas corpus, historically used to test the legality of custody, see…