Ex Parte Quirin
Headline: Court upheld the President’s use of a military commission to try German agents who secretly landed to sabotage U.S. war facilities, allowing their military trials to proceed and denying civilian habeas relief.
Holding: The Court held that the President lawfully ordered trial by military commission of the German agents for unlawful belligerency and that their detention for that military trial was lawful, denying habeas relief.
- Allows wartime military commissions to try enemy agents who enter disguised.
- Limits immediate civilian habeas review for those held as unlawful belligerents.
- Permits military custody while commission prosecutions proceed.
Summary
Background
Eight men born in Germany and living in the United States returned to Germany, received sabotage training, and were sent back in submarines to land secretly on U.S. beaches with explosives. After discarding uniforms and traveling in civilian clothes to American cities, they were arrested by the FBI. The President issued an order and proclamation on July 2, 1942, creating a military commission to try them for violations of the law of war and the Articles of War; the men sought to challenge their detention in civilian courts by habeas corpus petitions.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether these men could be tried by a military commission rather than in civilian courts with a jury. It held that the facts charged made them unlawful belligerents under the law of war because they entered or remained in U.S. territory in civilian dress with hostile intent to destroy war materials. The Court concluded that Congress and long practice recognize military commissions can try such offenses, and that the Fifth and Sixth Amendment guarantees of grand jury and jury trial do not bar military trials for this class of wartime offenses. The Court therefore found the commission had jurisdiction and the men were lawfully held for trial.
Real world impact
The decision allows the Government to use military commissions to prosecute enemy agents who secretly enter to commit sabotage, and limits immediate access to civilian habeas corpus for such detainees while military trials proceed. The Court announced its per curiam decision July 31, 1942, and later prepared a fuller opinion.
Dissents or concurrances
A few Justices differed on the precise legal basis for allowing the particular procedures used by the President and the Commission, and one Justice did not participate.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?