Beaulieu v. Minnesota Department of Human Services
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1DissentKlaphake, Judge
I respectfully dissent. I do not agree that the law of habeas corpus is as narrowly limited as the majority’s interpretation of relevant case law suggests. Relying on a long line of authority, the United States Supreme Court stated that “habeas relief in cases involving Executive detention” is not limited to claims of “constitutional error.” Immigr. & Nat. Serv. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 302-03, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 2280, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001). Likewise, Minnesota law does not draw this distinction as closely as my colleagues suggest. The Minnesota Supreme Court stated that “[pjossible grounds…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Immigration & Naturalization Service v. St. CyrSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- State v. SchwartzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2001
- Kelsey v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
- State Ex Rel. Anderson v. United States Veterans HospitalSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
- Loyd v. FabianCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2004