Young v. Ragen

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON delivered the opinion of the Court. We are once again faced with the recurring problem of determining what, if any, is the appropriate post-trial procedure in Illinois by which claims of infringement of federal rights may be raised. See Woods v. Nierstheimer, 328 U.S. 211; The situation is further complicated, however, by the fact that many circuit courts, whose decisions upon habeas corpus are unreviewable by the state supreme court under Illinois law, have continued to deny petitions for habeas corpus on procedural grounds since the supreme court's ""announcement"" in People v. Loftus, supra. The Attorney General's position concerning these denials, as we understand it, is that these decisions may be wrong, depending upon whether his interpretation of the Loftus ""announcement"" is the correct one, but that whether right or wrong, they are decisions solely upon a question of Illinois procedural law and thus do not warrant invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court.