|
Understanding Terrorism Cases
Case Study
Johnson v. Eisentrager
339 U.S. 763 (1950)
Introduction
Key Points
Facts
Issue
Talking Points
Ruling
Reasoning
Dissenting Opinion
Discussion Starters
Introduction
Johnson v. Eisentrager examines a variety of legal issues, including habeas corpus, the rules of war, war crimes, and international law. In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to balance the liberties protected by the Constitution, particularly those surrounding procedural due process, with the right of the U.S. military to conduct effective military operations. Moreover, the Court was asked to address to what extent the protections of the Constitution apply outside of the boundaries of the United States.
Key Points
- The writ of habeas corpus is known as the Great Writ. It allows individuals who believe that they are unjustly detained to challenge the legality of their confinement.
- The persons filing for a writ of habeas corpus were German nationals living in China during World War II. They never lived in the United States.
- The German nationals were accused of violating the laws of war, not the domestic law of the United States.
- The German nationals were tried by a U.S. military tribunal in China, not by a civilian federal or state court in the United States.
- Those German nationals convicted by the military tribunal of war crimes were sent to Landsberg Prison in Germany to serve their sentences. The prison was in the then-U.S.-occupied sector of Germany (after World War II, Germany and its capital, Berlin, were divided among the four main victorious allies: the United States, Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union).
- The convicted German nationals, including Eisentrager (the named party in the case), filed for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the military's actions violated their due process rights under the U.S. Constitution.
Facts
During World War II, Germany surrendered on May 8, 1945. Japan surrendered on September 2, 1945. Twenty-one German nationals living in China were accused by the United States military of disobeying the German High Command's order to surrender (and cease all hostilities against the United States) by informing Japanese forces, who had not yet surrendered, of U.S. troop movements in China. This act, breaking a truce or surrender, constitutes a violation of the laws of war. After taking the 21 German nationals into custody, the U.S. military tried them for war crimes before a U.S. military tribunal in China. Most were convicted and sent to the then-U.S.-occupied section of Germany to serve their prison terms. Some of the convicts, including Eisentrager (the named party in the case) questioned the legality of their trials. They filed for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, stating that the military's actions violated their rights as guaranteed by several portions of the U.S. Constitution, including Article III and Amendment V.
Article III, Section 2, states in pertinent part:
"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."
Amendment V states:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law [emphasis added]; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
The District Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. It said that it had no authority over foreign nationals tried, convicted, and sent to prison abroad for offenses that occurred abroad. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed, effectively ruling that the provisions of the Constitution follow the flag. It also ruled that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia had jurisdiction over this case since the Secretary of Defense was headquartered within the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The German nationals' military jailers in Germany answered to the Secretary of Defense. The Supreme Court summarized the Court of Appeal's decision as follows:
"It [the Court of Appeals] concluded that any person, including an enemy alien, deprived of his liberty anywhere under any purported authority of the United States is entitled to the writ [of habeas corpus] if he can show that extension to his case of any constitutional rights or limitations would show his imprisonment illegal; that, although no statutory jurisdiction of such cases is given, courts must be held to possess it as part of the judicial power of the United States; that where deprivation of liberty by an official act occurs outside the territorial jurisdiction of any District Court, the petition will lie in the District Court which has territorial jurisdiction over officials who have directive power over the immediate jailer"1 (1950).
The government, represented by Secretary of Defense (Johnson), asked the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court granted the writ. A writ of certiorari is a legal command in which a higher court asks a lower court to send up the transcript of a particular case to review. The Supreme Court has discretionary jurisdiction. It hears only cases that it chooses to hear. The Secretary of Defense had to ask the Court to grant the writ of certiorari for it to hear the case.
Issue
Are foreign nationals entitled to habeas corpus relief in the federal courts if they have never lived in the United States?
Ruling (6-3)
No. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court stated that the convicted German nationals were not entitled to habeas relief in the federal courts.
Reasoning
Opinion for the Court
In his opinion for the court, Justice Robert Jackson emphasized the distinction between citizens and aliens. Moreover, he emphasized the distinction between friendly aliens (persons who owe allegiance to countries with which the United States has normal diplomatic relations) and enemy aliens (persons who owe allegiance to countries with which the United States is at war). While friendly aliens can often avail themselves of the United States courts, Justice Jackson noted that this is not typically the case for enemy aliens. Jackson also pointed out the possibility that, if the Court ruled in favor of the German nationals, there was the possibility that they could escape punishment, since it was questionable whether any law allowed the federal courts to hear these types of cases. Finally, Justice Jackson stated that to support the German nationals' claim that they were entitled to habeas relief, the Court would have to:
"Hold that a prisoner of our military authorities is constitutionally entitled to the writ, even though he (a) is an enemy alien; (b) has never been or resided in the United States; (c) was captured outside of our territory and there held in military custody as a prisoner of war; (d) was tried and convicted by a Military Commission sitting outside the United States; (e) for offenses against laws of war committed outside the United States; (f) and is at all times imprisoned outside the United States."
For these reasons, Justice Jackson and the majority of the Court concluded that the German nationals were not entitled to habeas relief. In so doing, the Court stated the legal principle that the federal courts do not have jurisdiction over issues that arise in territories in which United States sovereignty does not extend.
Dissenting Opinion
Three Justices dissented from the Court's opinion. Justice Hugo Black, writing for the dissenters, said that the German nationals had some legitimate points and that the writ of habeas corpus should be granted so that the federal courts could at least inquire about them. In particular, he questioned whether the activities that the nationals engaged in—not obeying a truce or surrender—could be considered war crimes. "The alleged circumstances, if proven, would place these Germans in much the same position as patriotic French, Dutch, or Norwegian soldiers who fought on with the British after their homelands officially surrendered to Nazi Germany," he argued. Perhaps more importantly, though, Justice Black questioned whether the principles enshrined in the Constitution ought to be made applicable everywhere that the U.S. military goes. He concluded, "I would hold that our courts can exercise it [granting a writ of habeas corpus] whenever any United States official illegally imprisons any person in any land we govern. Courts should not for any reason abdicate this, the loftiest power with which the Constitution has endowed them."
Discussion Starters
- When conducting trials of war criminals, do you feel that the U.S. military should follow all of the due process procedures mentioned in the Constitution?
- How do you feel about the Court's decision? Do you feel that persons tried before U.S. military tribunals should have the opportunity to file in federal court for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge their sentences? How involved does the United States have to be in the legal process for U.S. courts to grant habeas review to a case? What if the sentence was the result of a conviction by a multinational tribunal? What if the conviction was by a foreign court operating in a U.S.-occupied zone?
- In his dissent, Justice Hugo Black argued that the offenses for which the convicted German nationals were imprisoned might not have constituted war crimes. When this case was decided (1950), who do you think should have had the final say as to what constitutes war crimes—the U.S. military or the federal judiciary? At present, who should have this power—the U.S. military? The federal judiciary? The United Nations?
- Do you agree with Justice Black that the rights and liberties enshrined in the Constitution should follow the Constitution wherever the U.S. military goes? Are there any situations in which this may not be appropriate?
- Are their any international institutions for appealing a detainment and/or conviction?
1. From the Supreme Court's majority opinion in Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763. |
