Spotted this in an edited volume on the Warren Court, in an essay entitled "The Warren Court and the Press" by John MacKenzie:
On December 4, 1967, the Court denied review to two topless, and by definition newsworthy, young ladies from Los Angeles, whose petition claimed first amendment protection for their chosen form of expression.1 The ladies sought relief from the toils of prosecution by means of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus--a remedy that was intriguing in itself--but had been spurned by the lower courts.
The dashed phrase didn't make sense until I thought about the Latin. I believe habeas corpus literally means "you (should) have the body" and the Great Writ in its entirety is habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, which translates "you should have the body for submitting." Intriguing indeed.
MacKenzie notes that only William O. Douglas voted to review the case. Justice Douglas had just entered his fourth and final marriage in 1967 to a woman 40 years younger than himself, but apparently hadn't lost his enthusiasm for have young ladies' bodies submitted to him.
1. Bennett v California, 389 U.S. 985 (1967).