Little v. Barreme
2 Cranch 170 (1804)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A military officer is liable for damages for executing an order from a superior that is contrary to an act of Congress. An executive order from the President cannot legalize an act that a federal statute has made illegal.
Facts:
- During a period of undeclared hostilities between the United States and France, Congress passed the Non-Intercourse Act.
- The Act authorized the President to instruct U.S. naval commanders to stop and seize any American vessel on the high seas that was sailing to a French port.
- The President, through the Secretary of the Navy, issued an executive order instructing naval commanders to seize American vessels sailing to or from French ports.
- Captain Little, commander of the U.S. frigate Boston, was operating under this broader presidential order.
- On December 2, 1799, Captain Little's vessel seized the Flying-Fish, a Danish (neutral) ship.
- The Flying-Fish was on a voyage from Jeremie, a French port, to St. Thomas, a neutral port.
Procedural Posture:
- Captain Little seized the Flying-Fish and brought it to Boston, where it was libelled in federal court (court of first instance) as a violator of the non-intercourse law.
- The trial court judge ordered the vessel and cargo restored to its owners but refused to award them damages, finding there was probable cause for the seizure.
- The owners of the Flying-Fish (claimants) appealed the denial of damages to the U.S. Circuit Court.
- The Circuit Court, acting as the intermediate appellate court, reversed the trial court's decision and awarded damages to the owners.
- Captain Little (appellant) then appealed the Circuit Court's judgment awarding damages to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 military officer's obedience to a presidential order that exceeds the authority granted by Congress protect the officer from civil liability for an otherwise unlawful act?
Opinions:
Majority - Marshall, C.J.
No. A military officer's obedience to a presidential order that exceeds the authority granted by Congress does not protect the officer from civil liability. The Court reasoned that the Non-Intercourse Act specifically and deliberately limited the authority to seize vessels to only those 'bound or sailing to' a French port. By implication, Congress excluded vessels sailing from a French port. The President's order, by including vessels sailing 'from' French ports, exceeded the statutory authority granted by Congress. Although the Chief Justice was initially inclined to believe an officer should be excused for obeying a superior's order, the Court concluded that an executive instruction cannot change the nature of the transaction or legalize an act that, without those instructions, would be a 'plain trespass.' Therefore, since the seizure of the Flying-Fish was not authorized by the statute, Captain Little is personally liable for damages.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational statement on the separation of powers and the supremacy of statutory law over executive orders. It establishes that the President's power as commander-in-chief is constrained by the laws enacted by Congress. The decision firmly rejects the 'superior orders' defense in a civil context when the order itself contravenes a statute, reinforcing the principle that all government officials, including military officers, are subject to the rule of law. This precedent significantly shapes the legal landscape regarding the limits of executive authority and the personal liability of government agents.
Unlock the full brief for Little v. Barreme