Tarble's Case
80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 397 (1871)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
State courts have no jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus to inquire into the detention of persons held by an officer of the United States acting under the claim and color of federal authority.
Facts:
- A young man enlisted in the United States Army.
- The enlistment was alleged to be illegal because the enlistee was a minor at the time.
- A United States recruiting officer held the enlisted soldier in custody.
- The soldier was detained by the federal officer under the claimed authority of the United States military.
Procedural Posture:
- A petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed on behalf of an enlisted soldier with a court commissioner for Dane County, Wisconsin.
- The state court commissioner issued the writ, and after a hearing, ordered the soldier's discharge from U.S. military custody.
- The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, the state's highest court.
- The Supreme Court of Wisconsin affirmed the commissioner's order discharging the prisoner.
- The case was then brought to the United States Supreme Court for review.
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 state judicial officer have jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the validity of a person's detention by a U.S. military officer and order their release?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Field
No. A state judicial officer lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus for the discharge of a person held under the authority, or claim and color of authority, of the United States by a federal officer. The U.S. government and the state governments are distinct and independent sovereignties, each supreme within its own sphere. State courts cannot use their judicial process to intrude upon the domain of the federal government, a principle established in Ableman v. Booth. The power to raise and regulate armies is an exclusive federal function, and allowing state courts to interfere with military enlistments would subject federal operations to constant disruption and impair national security. Once a state court is informed that a person is held by a federal officer under federal authority, its jurisdiction ceases and it can proceed no further; any challenge to the legality of that detention must be brought in federal court.
Dissenting - The Chief Justice
Yes. A state court has the right to issue a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the jurisdiction of a federal officer detaining a person. To deny state courts the power to adjudicate such petitions is to deny citizens protection against arbitrary imprisonment in a large class of cases, contrary to the spirit of the Constitution's guarantee of the writ of habeas corpus. If a state court errs in its decision regarding federal jurisdiction, the proper remedy is an appeal to a higher federal court for correction, not the wholesale denial of the state court's power to make the initial inquiry.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the doctrine of dual sovereignty by creating a bright-line rule that sharply divides state and federal judicial power. It extends the precedent of Ableman v. Booth, which involved detention under federal judicial process, to include detention by federal executive and military officers. The decision effectively channels all challenges against federal authority into the federal court system, preventing state courts from interfering with federal functions such as military administration, law enforcement, and treaty enforcement. This ruling has had a lasting impact, ensuring federal supremacy and operational independence from state judicial oversight.
Unlock the full brief for Tarble's Case