Everett v. Truman
Headline: Request to file a petition challenging sentences from a U.S. military court at Dachau is denied by the Court for lack of jurisdiction, blocking Supreme Court review of those military convictions.
Holding: The Court denied leave to file an original habeas petition challenging sentences from a General Military Government Court at Dachau, concluding it lacked jurisdiction to hear the petition.
- Prevents Supreme Court review of sentences from the Dachau military court at this stage.
- Leaves the sentence enforcement unchanged while jurisdiction questions remain.
- Four Justices would have allowed full briefing and argument.
Summary
Background
Willis M. Everett, Jr., acting for himself, asked permission to file an original habeas petition seeking relief from sentences imposed by a General Military Government Court at Dachau, Germany. The Court met in a special session called by the Chief Justice, and the single question before the Justices was whether to allow the petition to be filed and considered.
Reasoning
A majority of the Justices concluded that the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear this kind of original petition. The Chief Justice and three other Justices stated that Article III of the Constitution and existing decisions prevent the Court from taking the case in this way, so they denied the motion for leave to file. Four other Justices disagreed and thought the petition should be allowed and set for argument. One Justice did not participate.
Real world impact
Because the Court denied permission to file the petition, the petitioner is blocked from obtaining Supreme Court review of those Dachau military-court sentences at this stage. The decision is procedural, focusing on whether the Court can take the case now, not on whether the underlying sentences were lawful. The split among the Justices means the issue of access to the Court remains contested and could arise again in another form.
Dissents or concurrances
Four Justices would have granted leave to file and scheduled full argument, signaling they believed the Court should examine the petition rather than deny it on procedural grounds.
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?