Today in Supreme Court History: July 29, 1942

7/29/1942: Supreme Court hears oral argument in Ex Parte Quirin.

The Stone Court (1942)

Comments

[Martinned2]

Wrongly decided. Just because they put on uniforms doesn't mean they weren't just criminals.

[Armchair]

Hard to see how it was wrongly decided.
1. Declared war
2. Nationals of the offending nation.
3. On orders of the offending nation.
4. Smuggled into the US to engage in actions designed to impede the US's war making efforts.

---Seems to me it would fall squarely under the laws of war, as opposed to civilian law.---

But let's ask the opposite situation.

The US took roughly 425,000 Germans prisoner during WWII. If you wanted to treat them under civilian law, a case could be made that they all engaged in conspiracy to murder US nationals. That would put them all under "quite" a long prison sentence. As opposed to simply being repatriated at the end of hostilities (for most).

Is that what you would prefer?

[Martinned2]

Prisoners of war are captured in or near the battlefield. See, for example, art. 19 of the 1949 Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War.

Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.

The German soldiers captured by the US in Europe were all prisoners of war in that sense.

A spy who is sent to engage in sabotage far away from any battlefield, on the other hand, should not be designated as a prisoner of war just because it suits them and/or the US government to do so.

[Armchair]

Just because they are captured "near the battlefield" doesn't mean they can't be charged with civilian crimes. Right?

[apedad]

I agree with you but please note that your reference (art. 19 of the 1949 Geneva Convention), became effective after this incident (1942).

[John F. Carr]

From the ICRC commentary to the 1949 Geneva Convention:

Doubt may arise when it is not clear whether the person in fact belongs to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4. Examples include persons who accompany the armed forces and have lost their identity cards; persons engaged in belligerent acts without wearing a uniform or fixed distinctive sign in zones of active hostilities; persons suspected of being spies; persons working as private contractors; and persons suspected of being mercenaries.

I have seen a more extensive discussion of the spy and saboteur exception but I can't find it right now.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciii-1949/article-5/commentary/2020?activeTab=undefined

[Dilan Esper]

Scalia, for what it's worth, called it "not this Court's finest hour". I am with Scalia on this.

[David Nieporent]

Wrongly decided. Just because they put on uniforms doesn’t mean they weren’t just criminals.

I mean, it kind of does, actually. Well, not just because they put on uniforms; it's also that they were acting on behalf of the German military and engaged in military objectives. if they had robbed a liquor store that'd have been an ordinary crime. But they were engaging in acts of war.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Times-Picayune Publishing Corp. v. Schulingkamp, 419 U.S. 1301 (decided July 29, 1974): Powell stays trial judge’s prior restraint order prohibiting publication of pretrial testimony; order was to stay in effect until the end of the trial, the purpose being to prevent jury being swayed by what they read in the papers. Powell’s opinion briefly reviews Court decisions weighing the right to a public trial (First and Sixth Amendments) versus the right to an impartial jury (Sixth). Defendant, age 17 at the time and black, was accused of raping and murdering a white nurse, and Powell notes that some of the reporting was “irresponsible”. However he noted no “imminent threat” to a fair trial. (Defendant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment; while in prison he was put on trial again for armed robbery and sentenced to a further 99 years. See 329 So.2d 728.)

[F.D. Wolf]

As a point of minor interest, I noticed that one of the prosecutors in the Louisiana state case you cited was Harry Connick, Sr., father of the famous singer. Connick, Sr., was the district attorney for Orleans Parish from 1974 to 2003. He just recently passed away in January of this year. He had defeated three-term D.A. Jim Garrison (of JFK conspiracy notoriety) in the 1973 Democratic primary. The murder in this case occurred in April 1973, so the prosecution must have commenced under Garrison and continued under Connick.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Connick shows up in a few of the cases I've summarized!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Court At War by Cliff Sloan discussed this and other WWII related cases.

https://booksinaflash.com/book-summary-the-court-at-war-fdr-his-justices-and-the-world-they-made/

As to today’s cap’ case, the Supreme Court would later examine the issue in cases such as Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart.

[Dan Schiavetta]

What caught my eye on that case was not the First/Sixth Amendment issue but the idea of a black teenager in the South (Louisiana) being sentenced to life imprisonment, then while in prison tried for armed robbery and sentenced to another 99 years. With the life expectancy of black men at the time being 62 years, that means that he probably died in 2019 but his remains will stay locked up until 2118. Hopefully he won't be put on trial a third time so that they have to keep his skeleton around until 2217. Can he sue them for denying him bathroom privileges?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

There is a possibility that the original charge would be found invalid, or a commutation occur or something.

But the basic thing there is a limit of what you can do. If you commit a crime while in prison that is not a capital crime, they can’t execute you. Another thing is when people commit a whole lot of serious noncapital crimes, and the sentences add up to longer than a human life.

I do wonder what happens with vampires and other supernatural beings with longer life spans. Some biblical figures lived a long time too.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What caught my eye on that case was not the First/Sixth Amendment issue but the idea of a black teenager in the South (Louisiana) being sentenced to life imprisonment, then while in prison tried for armed robbery and sentenced to another 99 year

I'm not sure I understand what you find odd about this. If someone commits two unrelated serious crimes before getting caught, do you think they should just get a pass on one of them?

[Dan Schiavetta]

If they're already in jail for life one might think the prosecutor would lay off and go after someone else. Decisions not to prosecute are made all the time. But this was a young black man in Louisiana.