Johnson v. Eisentrager
339 U.S. 763 (1950)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Constitution of the United States does not confer a right to the writ of habeas corpus upon alien enemies who, at all relevant times, were captured, tried by military commission, and imprisoned outside the sovereign territory of the United States for war crimes committed abroad.
Facts:
- Twenty-one German nationals were in China in the service of the German armed forces or government prior to May 8, 1945.
- After the German High Command unconditionally surrendered on May 8, 1945, but before the surrender of Japan, these German nationals continued hostile operations against the United States.
- Their operations consisted of collecting and furnishing intelligence about American forces to the Japanese armed forces.
- After the Japanese surrender, the United States Army took the German nationals into custody in China.
- A U.S. Military Commission, sitting in China with the consent of the Chinese government, tried and convicted them of violating the laws of war.
- Following their conviction, the prisoners were transported to Landsberg Prison in Germany, which was under the control of the U.S. Army, to serve their sentences.
Procedural Posture:
- Twenty-one German nationals petitioned the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for writs of habeas corpus.
- The District Court dismissed the petition, citing lack of territorial jurisdiction.
- The petitioners appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings.
- The U.S. government officials (respondents) were granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do United States civil courts have jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus for alien enemies who were captured abroad, tried and convicted by a U.S. military commission abroad for war crimes committed abroad, and have at all times been imprisoned abroad?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Jackson
No. United States civil courts lack jurisdiction because the privilege of habeas corpus does not extend to enemy aliens who have never been within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. The Court reasoned that constitutional rights, especially procedural ones like habeas corpus, have historically been predicated on an individual's presence within the sovereign territory of the United States. These petitioners are nonresident enemy aliens who were captured, tried, and are imprisoned entirely outside of U.S. territory for offenses committed abroad. Extending the writ in such circumstances is unsupported by constitutional text, statute, or precedent and would severely hamper military operations by allowing enemies to challenge military commanders in civil courts. The Court distinguished this case from Ex parte Quirin and In re Yamashita, where the petitioners were held within U.S. territorial jurisdiction, and held that the Fifth Amendment's reference to 'any person' does not apply to nonresident enemy aliens in a foreign theater of war.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Black
Yes. A federal court's jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus should not depend on the geographical location where the Executive chooses to imprison a person. The Court's prior unanimous decisions in Ex parte Quirin and In re Yamashita established that even enemy belligerents have the right to challenge the jurisdiction of a military tribunal through habeas corpus. By denying these petitioners access to the courts solely because they are held overseas, the majority creates a dangerous principle that allows the Executive to evade judicial review by moving prisoners outside U.S. borders. The fundamental purpose of habeas corpus is to provide a judicial check on illegal detention by the Executive, a principle that should apply whenever a U.S. official imprisons any person in any land governed by the United States.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a bright-line rule denying nonresident enemy aliens held outside the U.S. access to American civil courts for habeas corpus relief. It reinforces a strict, territorial view of constitutional jurisdiction, emphasizing that constitutional protections do not follow the U.S. military abroad for the benefit of its enemies. The ruling solidifies the separation of powers by deferring to military and executive authority in matters of war and the punishment of war criminals in foreign territories. This precedent became a central point of contention in later cases concerning detainees at Guantanamo Bay, where the Court would eventually distinguish and limit this holding in cases like Rasul v. Bush and Boumediene v. Bush.
Unlock the full brief for Johnson v. Eisentrager