[3] Based on this precedent, the majority opinion, written by Associate Justice William J. Brennan Jr., found that Charles Braden was considered eligible to petition for a writ of habeas corpus from a federal district court in Kentucky, despite his current confinement in an Alabama state prison.

[1] Second, in the 1969 case Smith v. Hooey, the Supreme Court ruled that states are required to respond to petitions for a speedy trial with a good faith effort, even if the petitioner is currently serving a federal prison sentence.

[6][1] Associate Justice Harry Blackmun's short concurrence cautioned that since the 1940s, the Supreme Court has significantly expanded opportunities to petition for habeas corpus.

[1] Associate Justice William Rehnquist's dissent criticized modifications to the statutory interpretation of Ahrens v. Clark, given that Congress could have amended 28 U.S.C.

Additionally, the dissent critiqued the majority's reference to Peyton v. Rowe as irrelevant because whereas that case dealt with challenging the later portions of concurrent prison sentences, Braden was petitioning for habeas corpus regarding a trial yet to occur.

§ 2241, the Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush (2008) that Guantanamo Bay detainees nonetheless retain a constitutional right to petition for federal habeas corpus under the Suspension Clause because the United States maintains de facto sovereignty over the detention camp.