| 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 851 (4th Cir. 1962); 313 F.2d 347 (4th Cir. 1963) |
| 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 ; 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 |
| Lawsapplied: | 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus) |
| Overturned Previous Case: | Pervear v. Massachusetts (1867) |
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.[1] Prior to this, starting with Pervear v. Massachusetts, 72 U.S. 475 (1866),[2] 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.[3] Subsequently, in Cooper v. Pate (1964),[4] an inmate successfully obtained standing to challenge the denial of his right to practice his religion through a habeas corpus writ.