United States Ex Rel. Toth v. Quarles
76 S. Ct. 1, 1955 U.S. LEXIS 167, 350 U.S. 11 (1955)
Rule of Law:
Congress lacks the constitutional authority under Article I to subject civilians, including honorably discharged ex-servicemen who have severed all relationship with the military, to trial by court-martial; such individuals are entitled to trial by jury and the safeguards of Article III courts.
Facts:
- Robert W. Toth served with the United States Air Force in Korea.
- Toth received an honorable discharge and returned to his home in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where he began working in a steel plant.
- Five months after his discharge, while he had no relationship of any kind with the military, he was arrested by military authorities.
- He was charged with murder and conspiracy to commit murder for actions allegedly taken while he was an airman in Korea.
- Despite his civilian status, military authorities transported Toth back to Korea to stand trial before a court-martial under the authority of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Procedural Posture:
- Toth's sister filed a petition for habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- The District Court ordered Toth discharged, ruling that he could not be taken to Korea for trial without a hearing.
- The Government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court and sustained the Act, ruling that civilian ex-servicemen could constitutionally be subjected to trial by court-martial.
- Toth petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
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 Congress have the power under Article I of the Constitution to authorize the trial by court-martial of a civilian ex-serviceman for crimes allegedly committed while he was a member of the armed forces?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Black
No, the Court held that subjecting a civilian ex-serviceman to military jurisdiction violates the Constitution. The Court reasoned that the power granted to Congress in Article I 'To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces' restricts court-martial jurisdiction to persons who are actual members of the armed forces. Any expansion of this jurisdiction necessarily encroaches on the jurisdiction of Article III federal courts, where defendants are protected by specific constitutional safeguards, most notably the right to trial by jury under the Sixth Amendment and indictment by grand jury under the Fifth Amendment. The Court emphasized that military tribunals do not possess the independence of Article III courts and that the primary function of the military is to fight wars, not to adjudicate guilt. The 'Necessary and Proper' clause cannot be used to infer a power that circumvents the Bill of Rights, and military discipline is not significantly served by court-martialing those who have already returned to civilian life.
Dissenting - Justice Reed
Yes, the dissent argued that Congress has the authority to regulate the armed forces, which includes the power to punish crimes committed by servicemen during their service, regardless of when the trial occurs. Justice Reed contended that the Fifth Amendment exception for 'cases arising in the land or naval forces' refers to the source of the crime (events during service) rather than the status of the defendant at the time of trial. The dissent argued that the Uniform Code of Military Justice provision was a reasonable exercise of congressional power to ensure discipline and that civilian courts are ill-equipped to handle military crimes committed on foreign soil.
Dissenting - Justice Minton
Yes, the dissent argued that Toth was not a 'full-fledged' civilian because the statute expressly reserved the right to try him for crimes committed while in service. Justice Minton viewed Toth's discharge as conditional, meaning he remained in a status subject to the military code for the specific purpose of answering for his prior military crimes.
Analysis:
This decision is a landmark ruling in defining the boundary between military and civil jurisdiction. By limiting the power of Congress to subject civilians to courts-martial, the Court firmly established the primacy of Article III courts and the fundamental right to a jury trial for non-military personnel. It rejects the functionalist argument that military convenience or the nature of the crime justifies stripping a citizen of constitutional protections once they have returned to civilian life. This case sets a precedent that the 'Necessary and Proper' clause cannot be used to expand military power beyond the strict requirements of maintaining discipline among actual troops.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: United States Ex Rel. Toth v. Quarles (1955)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"