Eisentrager et al. v. Forrestal, Secretary of Defense et al.
| Court |
United States Court of Appeal, District of Columbia, Unites States of America, United States |
| Case number |
10053 |
| Decision title |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Decision date |
15 April 1949 |
| Parties |
- Lothar Eisentrager alias Ludwig Ehrhardt
- James A. Forrestal
|
| Categories |
War crimes |
| Keywords |
international armed conflict, jurisdiction, war crime |
| Links |
|
| Other countries involved |
|
back to topSummary
On 8 May 1945, Germany unconditionally surrendered obliging all forces under German control to immediately cease hostilities. Twenty-one individuals, all German nationals, were tried and convicted by a United States military commission in China for violating the laws of war, namely by continuing to engage in, permitting or ordering military activity against the United States after the surrender of Germany. They were then transferred to a German prison and remained in the custody of the United States Army.
The twenty-one individuals, represented by Eisentrager, petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Columbia arguing that their continued detention violated the Constitution of the United States and they demanded a writ of habeas corpus, which is the right to be brought before a Court. The District Court denied the writ arguing that the petitioners were located outside of its jurisdiction. The present decision by the Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia reversed the decision of the District Court to hold that any individual is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus, an inherent common law right, where they have been deprived of their liberty by an act of the United States Government and their detention is in violation of the United States Constitution.
back to topProcedural history
In August 1946, the 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. They were tried and convicted by a military commission on 14 January 1947.
Since then the appellants have been imprisoned in Germany in the custody of the United States Army. The appellants petitioned for writs of habeas corpus in the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia on the grounds that their detention is in violation of Articles I and III of the US Constitution, of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, of other provisions of the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the 1929 Geneva Convention.
The District Court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction.
The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal of the District of Columbia.
back to topRelated developments
On 5 June 1950, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal of the District of Columbia and denied the writ of habeas corpus to the petitioners.
back to topLegally relevant facts
Prior to the surrender of Germany in World War II, the appellants were civilian employees of the German government in China. From 8 May 1945, the date of Germany’s surrender, to 15 August 1945, the cities in which the appellants were located were under the control of the armed forces of the Japanese Empire, which continued to engage in an armed conflict with the United States.
back to topCore legal questions
- Are the appellants entitled to a writ of habeas corpus as a substantive right?
- In the affirmative, can a federal jurisdictional statute deprive them of the right?
- If they are entitled to the writ and cannot be deprived of the privilege, which court is competent to assess their claim considering that the appellants are outside of the territorial jurisdiction of any district court?
back to topSpecific legal rules and provisions
- Section 2241 of Title 28 of the US Code
- Articles I and III of the Constitution of the United States
- Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
- 1929 Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.
back to topCourt's holding and analysis
The right to a writ of habeas corpus, that is the right to be brought before a judge, belongs to any person who is deprived of his liberty by officials of the United States acting under the purported authority of that Government provided that the person can show that his confinement is in violation of a prohibition of the Constitution (p. 5).
Foreign nationals may resort to habeas corpus. Constitutional prohibitions apply directly to acts of Government or Government officials, and are not conditioned upon persons or territory. Where such acts exceed their constitutional power, they are null and void and no more need be proven to establish their invalidity. Whether an act has exceeded its constitutional power or not is a question of merit, to be established by proof, and not a question of judicial jurisdiction (p. 5).
Where an individual has a right to a writ of habeas corpus, he cannot be deprived of that right by omission in a federal jurisdictional statute. The right to habeas corpus is an inherent common law right (p. 6).
Where an individual is deprived of his liberty by the act of an official of the United States outside the territorial jurisdiction of any District Court of the United States, that individual’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus will lie in the District Court which has territorial jurisdiction over the officials who have directive power over the person depriving the petitioner of his liberty, that is, his jailer (p. 7).
The judgment of the District Court was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings (p. 8).
back to topFurther analysis
- L.R. Nelson, 'Territorial Sovereignty and the Evolving Boumediene Factors: Al Maqaleh v. Gates and the Future of Detainee Habeas Corpus Rights', University of New Hampshire Law Review, 2011, Vol. 9, pp. 297-325;
- C.I. Keitner, 'Rights Beyond Borders', Yale Journal of International Law, 2011, Vol. 36, pp. 55-114;
- S.I. Vladeck, 'The Problem of Jurisdictional Non-Precedent', PrawfsBlawg, 25 June 2009;
- J.T. Thai, 'The Law Clerk Who Write Rasul v. Bush: John Paul Stevens’ Influence from World War II to the War on Terror', Virgina Law Review, 2006, Vol. 92;
- C. Lane, 'Shanghaied', Green Bag 2D, Vol. 7, pp. 247-256;
- T. Yin, 'The Role of Article III Courts in the War on Terrorism', William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 2005, Vol. 13, pp. 1061-1127;
- C.M. Schumann, 'Bring It On: The Supreme Court Opens the Floodgates with Rasul v. Bush', Air Fore Law Review, 22 March 2004;
- C.A. Alkire, 'Habeas Corpus: Empowerement of the Supreme Court and National Security Implications', Thesis presented to San Diego State University, 2011;
- T.A.O. Endicott, 'Habeas Corpus and Guantanamo Bay: A View from Abroad', Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper, no. 6/2007 (2009);
- A.D. Walen and I. Venzke, 'Detention in the War on Terror: Constitutional Interpretation Informed by the Law of War', ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law, 2008, Vol. 14, no. 1;
- M. Bahar, 'Nessity Creates the Rule: Eisentrager, Boumediene and the Enemy - How Strategic Realities Can Constitutionally Require Greater Rights for Detainess in the Wars of the Twenty-First Century', University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 2009, Vol. 11, no. 2;
- W.C. Nicholson, Homeland Security Law and Policy, Illinois, 2005. See especially pp. 451-458.
back to topInstruments cited
back to topRelated cases
- Supreme Court of the United States, Johnson v. Eisentrager, Case No. 306, Judgment, (339 US 763.) 5 June 1950,
back to topSocial media links
