The rights of prisoners of war depends on which country holds them. In this lesson, we will learn how the Supreme Court’s decision in ”Johnson v. Eisentrager”. [Source: U.S. Supreme Court JOHNSON v. EISENTRAGER, U.S. (); June 5, ; available on ]. Johnson, Secretary of Defense et al; Eisentrager alias Ehrhardt et al. Categories, War crimes. Keywords, detention, international armed conflict, jurisdiction, war.

Author: Mezilar Tazil
Country: Tanzania
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Environment
Published (Last): 26 September 2018
Pages: 378
PDF File Size: 18.91 Mb
ePub File Size: 3.44 Mb
ISBN: 178-6-91013-628-2
Downloads: 43038
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Yozshusida

After hearing all contentions they have seen fit to advance and considering every contention we can base on their application and the holdings below, we arrive at the same conclusion the Court reached eiwentrager each of those cases, viz.: It concluded that any person, including an enemy alien, deprived of his liberty anywhere under any purported authority of the United States is entitled to the writ if he can show that extension to his cases of any constitutional rights or limitations would show his imprisonment illegal; that, although no statutory jurisdiction of such cases is given, courts must be held to possess it as part of the judicial power of the United States; that, where deprivation of liberty by an official act occurs outside the territorial jurisdiction of any District Court, the petition will lie in the Eksentrager Court which has territorial jurisdiction over officials who have directive power over the immediate jailer.

The issues come here in this way:. In World War I, our conscription act sisentrager not subject the alien enemy to compulsory military service. One was, or Johnskn U.

Conceivably, a majority may hereafter find citizenship a sufficient substitute for territorial jurisdiction, and thus permit courts to protect Americans from illegal sentences.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to eidentrager, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Speaking for the 6—3 majority who ruled against the petitioners, Justice Robert H. Supreme Court case in which the court ruled in that nonresident enemy aliens do not have the legal right to petition U.

Al-Qaedabroad-based militant Islamist organization founded by Osama bin Laden in the late s.

United States, Johnson v. Eisentrager

This Court granted certiorari. On 8 MayGermany unconditionally surrendered obliging all forces under German control to immediately cease hostilities. Thus, the alien enemy status carries important immunities, as well as disadvantages. Can there be any doubt eisntrager our foes would also have been excepted but for the assumption “any person” would never be read to include those in arms against us? We are here confronted with a decision whose basic premise is that these prisoners are entitled, as a constitutional right, to sue in some court bs the United States for a writ of habeas corpus.


That there is a basis in conventional and long established law by which conduct ascribed to them might amount to a violation seems beyond question.

Johnson et al. v. Eisentrager et al.

It may be noted that no prejudicial disparity is pointed out as between the Commission that tried prisoners and those that would vw an offending soldier of the American forces of like rank.

When we analyze the claim prisoners are asserting eisentrayer the court below sustained, it amounts to a right not to be tried at all for an offense against our armed forces. This landmark Supreme Court case was reexamined in in light of the detention of alleged al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists following the September 11,terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The standing of the enemy alien to maintain any action in the courts of the United States has been often challenged, and sometimes denied.

When any citizen is deprived of his liberty by any foreign government, it is made the duty of the President to demand the reasons and, if the detention appears wrongful, to use means not amounting to acts of war to effectuate his release. This would require allocation of shipping space, guarding personnel, billeting, and rations.

The ultimate question in this case is one of jurisdiction of civil courts of the United States vis-a -vis military authorities in dealing with enemy aliens overseas. Ex parte Quirin, supra; Ex parte Yamashita, supra. In Augustthe appellant, Lothar Eisentrager, and the other individuals all German nationals whom he represents were served with charges of violations of the laws of war on the grounds that they had engaged in military activity against the United States after the surrender of Germany.

To grant the Page U. They were then transferred to a German prison and remained in the custody of the United States Army.

We have pointed out that the privilege of litigation has been extended to aliens, whether friendly or enemy, only because permitting their presence in the country implied Page U. This also is the doctrine and the practice of other states comprising our Western Civilization.


Three courts have considered their application and have provided their counsel opportunity to advance every argument in their [ As we observed in the Yamashita case, “If the military tribunals have lawful authority to hear, decide, and condemn, their action is not subject to judicial review merely because they johnsn made a wrong decision on disputed Page U.

Index of page Summary Procedural history Legally relevant facts Core legal questions Specific legal rules and provisions Court’s holding and analysis Further analysis Instruments cited Related cases Social media eiswntrager. Any contention that a similarly limited use of habeas corpus for these prisoners would somehow give them a preferred position in the law cannot be taken seriously.

Eisentrager 1 reference found in Britannica articles Assorted References Rasul v.

After conviction, the sentences were duly reviewed [ The ultimate question in this case is one of jurisdiction of civil courts of the United States vis-a-vis military authorities in dealing with enemy aliens overseas. From Wikipedia, johmson free encyclopedia.

Johnson v. Eisentrager – Wikipedia

In a 6—3 decision, the court held that U. Courts will entertain his plea for freedom from executive custody only to ascertain the existence of a state of war and Page Eisentragee. Rights of alien enemies are vindicated under it only through protests and intervention of protecting powers as the rights of our citizens against foreign governments are vindicated only by Presidential intervention. Lothar Eisentrager, [1] alias Ludwig Ehrhardt, et al.

We are unable to find that the petition alleges any fact showing lack of jurisdiction in the military authorities to accuse, try and condemn these prisoners or that they acted in excess of their lawful powers.

The proceeding was conducted wholly under American auspices, and involved no international participation. While his lot is far more humane Page U. Thank you for your feedback. By reason of our sovereignty at that time over these insular possessions, Yamashita stood much as did Quirin before American courts.