Supreme Court of the United States
Ex Parte Quirin. Ex Parte Haupt. Ex Parte Kerling. Ex Parte Burger. Ex Parte Heinck. Ex Parte Thiel. Ex Parte…
July 31, 1942317 U.S. 1
Summary
The Court affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas petitions, holding that the President may order trial by military commission of enemy belligerents for offenses against the law of war, that the commission was lawfully constituted, and that the petitioners’ detention was lawful. The decision rested on constitutional authority for war powers and the statutory framework for military commissions.
Holding
- Whether the President has authority to order trial by military commission of the petitioners for offenses alleged.. The charges alleged offenses that the President is authorized to order tried before a military commission.
- Whether the military commission was lawfully constituted under the Constitution and statutes.. The military commission was lawfully constituted.
- Whether the petitioners’ detention and denial of habeas relief are lawful.. Petitioners are held in lawful custody for trial before the military commission and have not shown cause for discharge by habeas corpus.
Docket Nos. —- Original and Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7—J
Cited authorities
- Hague Convention
- Hague Convention
- Hague Convention
- 18 U.S.C. § 481.6
- 28 U.S.C. § 347
- 28 U.S.C. § 347
- 28 U.S.C. § 347
- 28 U.S.C. § 347
Cited by
- Maurice M. Schaffer & another v. Goldie Leimberg Administrator of the Office of Price Administration, intervener
- James F. O'Callahan v. Chief United States Marshal, District of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts and The…
- Brown v. Sanford
- Jimenez v. Jones
- Benjamin Detenber, Plaintiffs, Appellants v. Thomas K. Turnage
- Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, and Mark A. Berman, as Next Friend v. Commander S.L. Wright, Usn Commander, Consolidated…
- Weightman v. United States
- Waliezer v. Howell