Ex Parte Adam Wayne Ingram

Summary

The Court affirmed the lower courts, holding that (1) anti‑defensive issues are not cognizable in a pre‑trial habeas proceeding, (2) the statute’s definition of “minor” is not facially overbroad when “represents” is given its ordinary meaning, and (3) the statute does not violate the Dormant Commerce Clause. Justice Alcala, in a concurring opinion, agreed with the judgment but would have decided all of the claims on the merits and found the statute unconstitutionally vague.