"Condoning Unconstitutional Executions. Warren Hill and the Withering of the Writ of Habeas Corpus," by Donald E. Wilkes, Jr. for the Flagpole. This is a lengthy article, here is the beginning. There is also an excellent chronology of the Hill case.
The idea that courts are not permitted to acknowledge that a mistake has been made which would bar an execution is quite incredible for a country that not only prides itself on having the quintessential system of justice but attempts to export it to the world as a model of fairness.–Judge Rosemary Barkett, dissenting opinion, In re Hill, 715 F.3d 284, 302 (11th Cir 2013).
The significance of the writ [of habeas corpus] for the moral health of our kind of society has been amply attested by all the great commentators, historians and jurists, on our institutions.–Justice Felix Frankfurter, concurring opinion, Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 512 (1953).
[I]f ever temporary circumstances, or the doubtful plea of political necessity, shall lead men to look on its [i.e., the writ of habeas corpus'] denial with apathy, the most distinguishing characteristic of our constitution will be effaced.–Henry Hallam
The Great Writ of Habeas Corpus, the only writ mentioned by name in the U.S. Constitution, is the glory of our legal system. This writ provides a legal remedy in court for obtaining relief from unlawful imprisonment and is, as Justice Felix Frankfurter observed, “one of the decisively differentiating factors between our democracy and totalitarian governments.” Above all, the writ of habeas corpus is one of the most important bulwarks of the Bill of Rights. If an American is restrained of his or her liberty by the government in violation of the Bill of Rights and if other remedies have failed or are unavailable to correct the injustice, habeas corpus may be used to obtain release from that unconstitutional custody.
Earlier coverage of Warren Hill's case begins at the link.