The Prize Cases
2 Black 635 (1862)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state of civil war may exist de facto between a sovereign government and states in armed rebellion without a formal declaration of war by Congress. The President has the constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief to recognize this state of war and to use military force, including a naval blockade, which subjects the property of those residing in hostile territory to capture as enemy property under the laws of war.
Facts:
- In early 1861, several Southern states seceded from the Union, formed a new government known as the Confederate States of America, and organized armies.
- Hostilities commenced when Confederate forces attacked Fort Sumter.
- In response, on April 19 and April 27, 1861, President Abraham Lincoln issued proclamations instituting a naval blockade of the ports in the seceded states.
- The United States Navy began enforcing this blockade.
- Following the proclamation, U.S. naval vessels captured several commercial ships (including the Amy Warwick, Crenshaw, Hiawatha, and Brilliante) that were attempting to enter or leave the blockaded Southern ports.
- The owners of the captured ships and their cargo were citizens of either the Confederate states, neutral foreign countries like Great Britain, or Northern states.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States government initiated prize proceedings in various U.S. District Courts against four captured vessels and their cargoes (the Amy Warwick, Crenshaw, Hiawatha, and Brilliante).
- The government sought to have the ships and cargoes condemned and forfeited as lawful prizes of war for either violating the naval blockade or as 'enemies' property.'
- The respective District Courts found in favor of the United States, condemning the vessels and their cargoes.
- The owners of the ships and cargoes, the claimants, appealed the decisions of the District Courts directly 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 the President have the authority, without a congressional declaration of war, to institute a naval blockade of ports under the control of rebellious states, thereby creating a state of war that allows for the capture of domestic and neutral vessels as enemy property under the laws of war?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Grier
Yes, the President has the authority to institute a blockade without a formal declaration of war from Congress. A civil war is a factual condition, not a legal status that must be declared by the legislature. The President, as Commander-in-Chief, has the duty to suppress insurrection and resist force with force. When an insurrection becomes so large and organized that it constitutes a de facto war, the President is bound to recognize it as such and may employ belligerent rights under international law, like a blockade. The President's proclamation of a blockade is conclusive evidence for the courts that a state of war existed. Furthermore, property of all persons residing within the rebellious territory is considered 'enemies' property' subject to capture, regardless of the owner's personal loyalty, because their assets can be used to support the hostile power.
Dissenting - Justice Nelson
No, the President does not have the authority to unilaterally create a state of war and institute a blockade. Under the Constitution, the power to declare war is exclusively vested in Congress. A state of civil war, with its attendant belligerent rights under the law of nations (such as prize capture and blockade), can only exist after it is recognized or declared by the war-making power of the government, which is Congress. Until Congress acts, an insurrection is a domestic disturbance to be suppressed under municipal law, not the laws of war. Therefore, the President's blockade was illegal until Congress ratified it on July 13, 1861, and any captures made before that date were void.
Analysis:
The Prize Cases are a landmark decision on the separation of powers and the scope of executive authority in wartime. The ruling significantly expanded the President's unilateral power as Commander-in-Chief, establishing that the executive can recognize a de facto state of war and exercise war powers without prior congressional authorization. This precedent has been central to subsequent debates over presidential authority to commit military force abroad without a formal declaration of war. By treating the conflict as a war under international law, the decision also legitimized the Union's use of measures like the blockade, which was critical to its military strategy.
Unlock the full brief for The Prize Cases