Ex Parte Milligan, 1866
- Rights of Citizens During Wartime
Background of the case
The Supreme Courts Decision
The Significance of this Case
- Because the military had been authorized to detain individuals without trial, which didn't apply to citizens in states, had upheld the authority of the Constitution.
- This was passed to ensure that people were to be put to trial by a civilian court, only if civilian courts are still operating in the area during the war.
- Lambdin P. Milligan and four others were accused of planning to steal Union weapons and invade Union prisoners of war camps. They also had plans to take over the state governments of Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan. When the plan was leaked out, they were charged and found guilty. Milligan, a U.S. citizen was arrested in his own home and brought before a military commission, even though he NEVER served in the military. They were sentenced to be hanged by a military court in 1864. However, their execution was not set until May 1865, so they were able to argue the case after the Civil War ended.
- Being one of the first cases after the end of the American Civil War, the United states supreme court ruled that it was lawful, but military tribunals did not apply to citizens in states that had upheld the authority of the Constitution and where civilian courts were still operating. To put it simply the Court ruled that military tribunals could not try civilians in areas where civil courts were open, even though the military had been authorized to detain individuals without trial.
The Constitutional Issue Involved
Milligan's 6th ammendment right to a jury trial had been violated (Wallick, 2013).
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
- In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense ( Gayle group, 2008).
Dissenting Opinion
Majority Opinion
Justice Davis (writer of the majority) made the following Major points:
- Firstly," did the court have the authority to even hear Milligan's "habeous petition" under the Judiciary Act of 1802
- Yes, in fact , BOTH parties admitted that Section 14 of the Judiciary act of 1789 authorized the circuit court to review Miligan's habeas review.
- KEY Issue: Did the Military Commission have the jurisdiction to try Milligan????
- No, the majority held that the court did not have the jurisdiction to try Milligan, as he was a citizen in a state where courts remained opened & their processes unobstructed" (Wallick, 2013).
Chief Justice Chase (writer of the dissenting opinion) Made the following major points:
- Was in agreement with the Majority, that the court had the Authority to hear Milligan's habeas petition, however, did NOT agree that it should be heard in the Supreme Court.
- On the basis, that the circuit courts were divided on the question of legality of Milligan's detainment.
- Did not agree with Justice Davis definition of judicial power. His interpretation was that Congress did NOT have power to authorize military tribunals in Indiana pursuant to its constitutional authority to raise and support armies & declare war.
- Believed that Congress had the Power, but did not exercise to authorize that sort of the military commission that was displayed.
- Regardless of Chief Justice's Beliefs, in the end he came into agreement with the Majority and found that under the Habeas Corpus Act, Milligan was statutorily entitled to be released and that his continued detention was unlawful (Wallik, 2013).
Majority Continued.........
Justice Davis stated: "That no graver question was ever considered by this court.....for it is the birthright of every American citizen charged with crimes, to be tried & punished according to the law." The Law... The Constitution, the court explained, applies equally in War & in Peace and "covers with the shield of protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. (Wallick, 2013).
It was these principals that the majority held the acts of military commission as unconstitutional and supported their belief with the following:
- Constitution defines Judicial power: In one supreme court and such inferior courts as congress may establish
- Military Commissions was established by the order of the President, NOT CONGRESS
- Although, the President was vested at that time with such authority under the "laws & usages of war" however, such Authority can NEVER be applied to citizens in NON-Rebellious states where civilian courts remain open i.e. (state of Indiana)
- Civilian Law provided for the arrest,punishment and sentencing, thus the Military Commission was without legal authority (Wallick, 2013).
work cited
- Gayle Group. (2008). Sixth amendment. In West'sEncylopedia of American law (2 ed.). Gayle Group, Inc. Retrieved from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sixth Amendment
- Http://www.constitution.org/ussc/071-002a.htm
- Wallick, N. (2013). [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://www.lawfareblog.com/wiki/the-lawfare-wiki-document-library/civil-war-era-materials/civil-war-era-materials-court-cases/ex-parte-milligan-71-us-2-1866/