Durand v. Hollins
1860 U.S. App. LEXIS 564, 8 F. Cas. 111, 4 Blatchf. 451 (1860)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An officer of the United States acting under a discretionary order from the President in matters of foreign affairs and national interest is not personally liable for civil damages resulting from the execution of that order. Such discretionary executive actions are considered non-justiciable political questions.
Facts:
- A community, described by the court as an "irresponsible and marauding community," had established itself in Greytown, Nicaragua.
- This community engaged in or threatened acts of lawless violence against American citizens and their property located in Greytown.
- Durand, a United States citizen, owned property in Greytown.
- The President of the United States determined that intervention was necessary to protect American citizens and interests from this community.
- The President, acting through the Secretary of the Navy, issued orders to Commander Hollins, the defendant.
- Pursuant to these orders, Commander Hollins commanded a naval bombardment that resulted in the destruction of Greytown, including Durand's property.
Procedural Posture:
- Durand sued Commander Hollins in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York to recover damages for the destruction of his property.
- In his defense, Hollins filed pleas asserting that he was acting under lawful orders from the President of the United States, as conveyed by the Secretary of the Navy.
- Durand objected to these pleas, arguing that they did not constitute a legally sufficient defense to the action.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a U.S. naval officer incur civil liability for destroying the property of a U.S. citizen abroad when acting under a discretionary order from the President, issued through the Secretary of the Navy, for the purpose of protecting American interests?
Opinions:
Majority - Nelson, Circuit Justice
No. An officer acting under a discretionary presidential order concerning foreign affairs is not civilly liable for the consequences. The Constitution vests the executive power in the President, making him the sole organ of the nation in foreign affairs and responsible for protecting citizens abroad. The decision to interpose for the protection of citizens abroad is a political question that rests entirely within the President's discretion. When an officer acts by the President's authority and in conformity with his orders, the officer's acts are the President's acts. The judiciary has no power to control or review such executive discretion, and therefore cannot hold the authorized agent civilly responsible for carrying out the President's directive. As established in Marbury v. Madison, the decision of the executive in such political matters is final and conclusive.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the application of the political question doctrine to the President's discretionary powers in foreign policy and national security. It establishes that courts will not review the merits of such presidential decisions, viewing them as matters entrusted to the executive branch by the Constitution. The ruling provides derivative immunity to subordinate officers carrying out lawful, discretionary orders, ensuring that executive and military agents can act decisively without fear of personal civil liability. This principle is crucial for the effective exercise of executive power in foreign relations and the protection of American citizens and interests abroad.
