No person shall be discharged under the provisions of this Rule 91 who is in custody or held by virtue of any legal engagement or enlistment in the armed services of the United States or who, being subject to the rules and articles of war, is confined by one legally acting under the authority thereof or who is held as a prisoner of war under the authority of the United States or who is in custody for any treason, felony or other high misdemeanor committed in any other state or territory of the United States and, by the Constitution and laws of the United States, ought to be delivered up to such state or territory.
Rule 91.23.Certain Persons not Entitled to Discharge.
Part III · Rule 91: Habeas Corpus · Last amended January 1, 1983 · Last verified July 22, 2026
In one sentenceRule 91.23 excludes certain restrained persons from discharge under Rule 91, including those legally engaged or enlisted in the armed services, those confined under military law, prisoners of war held under United States authority, and those held for extradition on serious out-of-state offenses.
Full Text of Rule 91.23
Amendment History
Adopted June 24, 1982, eff. Jan. 1, 1983.
Official Comment
This is the same as prior Rule 91.33.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 91.23 carves out categories of restraint that habeas corpus under Rule 91 cannot undo. No person may be discharged under this rule if that person is in custody or held by virtue of a legal engagement or enlistment in the armed services of the United States.
The rule also excludes people confined under military justice: a person who is subject to the rules and articles of war and is confined by someone legally acting under that authority cannot be discharged through this remedy. The same is true for a prisoner of war held under the authority of the United States.
Finally, the rule addresses interstate matters. A person held in custody for treason, felony, or another high misdemeanor committed in another state or territory, and who, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, ought to be delivered up to that state or territory, cannot obtain discharge under Rule 91. These carve-outs keep the state habeas remedy from interfering with federal military authority and interstate extradition obligations.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is excluded from discharge under Rule 91?
Persons legally engaged or enlisted in the United States armed services, those confined under military law by someone acting under that authority, prisoners of war held under United States authority, and those held for extradition on serious out-of-state offenses.
Does this rule apply to someone confined under the rules and articles of war?
Yes, such a person cannot be discharged under Rule 91 if confined by someone legally acting under that military authority.
Can a prisoner of war seek discharge under this rule?
No, the rule excludes prisoners of war held under the authority of the United States.
What category of out-of-state cases does this rule cover?
Custody for treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor committed in another state or territory, where the Constitution and federal law call for delivering that person up to the other state or territory.
Why do these exclusions exist?
They keep Missouri’s civil habeas corpus remedy from overriding federal military authority and the constitutional framework for interstate extradition.
Source & verification. Rule text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Missouri State & Federal Court Rules, adopted by the
Supreme Court of Missouri. Last verified July 22, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: persons not entitled to habeas dischargemilitary confinement habeas corpusextradition habeas corpus Missouriprisoner of war habeas exclusion