United States ex rel. Quirin v. Cox
Headline: Court allows military commission to try alleged German saboteurs, affirms their detention and denies habeas petitions, permitting military trials of enemy agents who entered the United States in civilian dress.
Holding:
- Allows military commissions to try alleged enemy saboteurs who enter in civilian dress.
- Affirms detention as lawful pending military trial and denies habeas petitions.
- Says Fifth and Sixth Amendments do not require jury trial for such war offenses.
Summary
Background
A group of men born in Germany and later living in the United States returned to Germany, trained at a sabotage school, and were sent back to the U.S. in 1942. Two separate groups landed from German submarines on Long Island and in Florida. They wore or carried German military items when landing, then buried them and proceeded in civilian clothes to cities with explosives and timing devices. Federal agents arrested them. The President issued a July 2, 1942 Order appointing a Military Commission and a Proclamation declaring such persons subject to the law of war; the men sought leave to file habeas petitions after lower courts denied relief, and the Supreme Court heard the matter at a special term.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether the President and Congress had authority to try these men by military commission for offenses against the law of war. It concluded the charges alleged unlawful belligerency—entering in civilian dress with hostile purpose to destroy war materials—which the law of war treats as triable by military tribunals. The Court explained that Congress had long recognized military commissions and that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments do not require jury trial for such offenses that were not jury-triable at common law. The Court therefore held the Commission had jurisdiction, the Order creating it was lawful, and detention for trial was lawful. The Court did not decide guilt or innocence.
Real world impact
The decision lets the military proceed with trials of enemy agents captured after secret entry, affirms that such detainees may be held for military trial, and denies the habeas applications challenging custody. It leaves other procedural and statutory questions unresolved and does not address the merits of guilt or punishment.
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?