Habeas access for jail sentences
Albrecht v. Hart
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Albrecht asked whether restraints backed by arrest and tied to a stayed jail sentence counted as being “in custody” for federal habeas review, and whether a federal judge should have been kept off her case because the judge’s spouse led the county court system.
- Who it affects
- The denial ended Albrecht’s request for Supreme Court review but did not resolve either question in her case.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court refused to hear the case (denied review) and did not decide either question.
Albrecht’s petition described a set jail sentence whose execution was paused as long as she followed protective-order restrictions. It said those restrictions could be enforced through arrest or contempt and were set to remain in place through Dec. 31, 2099.
The dispute combined a challenge to Illinois state-court restraints with a separate question about the federal judge assigned to review them.
Question presented
1. Whether a person is “in custody” under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 when a state court has imposed a definite jail sentence, stayed execution of that sentence conditioned on continued compliance with protective-order restraints, retained enforcement authority through contempt, arrest, and body attachment, and maintained arrest-backed restraints through December 31, 2099. 2. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) requires a conflict-free assignment path in a federal habeas case challenging restraints entered by a county court system led by the federal judge’s spouse, where impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.