## Facts

- In 1942, eight German agents entered the United States as part of a wartime sabotage mission, landing at night from submarines on the Eastern seaboard.
- They arrived wearing German military uniforms and carrying explosives and other sabotage devices, then buried the uniforms and traveled in civilian dress.
- They had been trained, paid, and directed by German military authorities to destroy U.S. war industries and facilities.
- The President issued a July 2, 1942 proclamation declaring enemy agents entering to commit sabotage or espionage subject to the law of war and military tribunals, and purporting to deny them access to courts.
- Acting under the proclamation and the Articles of War, the President convened a military commission and charged the men with law-of-war violations and related conspiracy offenses.
- Seven sought habeas corpus relief in federal court challenging the commission’s legality and their detention; after denial of leave to file, they sought review in the Supreme Court, which heard expedited argument in a special term.

## Issues

1. Whether the President, during wartime and under the Articles of War, could direct that the accused be tried by military commission rather than in civilian court.
2. Whether the Fifth and Sixth Amendments required indictment and jury trial, including for petitioners asserting U.S. citizenship, thereby barring trial by military commission.
3. Whether the President could constitutionally deny access to courts, and what role habeas corpus plays in reviewing the legality of a military commission and detention.

## Decision

- The Court unanimously upheld the military commission’s jurisdiction and legality and denied habeas relief.
- The Court held that the charges alleged offenses the President was authorized to have tried by military commission, that the commission was lawfully constituted, and that petitioners were lawfully held for trial.
- The Court rejected the view that the President’s proclamation could categorically bar access to civilian courts to test whether the commission and detention were lawful.
- The Court concluded the petitioners were unlawful enemy belligerents subject to trial and punishment by military tribunal for offenses against the law of war.
- The Court held that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments did not require indictment and jury trial for such law-of-war offenses tried by military commission, and that citizenship did not bar military trial where a citizen associated with enemy forces and undertook hostile acts.

## Legal Principles

- Civil courts may review, via habeas corpus, whether a presidential proclamation and military commission lawfully apply to particular detainees; executive language purporting to deny court access does not eliminate that judicial function.
- A federal court may refuse to issue habeas relief where the facts alleged, even if proved, would not warrant the prisoner’s discharge.
- Congress may authorize the use of military commissions to try offenses against the law of war; where such authorization exists, the President may convene commissions within that statutory framework.
- The law of war distinguishes lawful combatants, who generally receive prisoner-of-war status for lawful acts of war, from unlawful combatants (including spies and saboteurs), who may be tried by military tribunals for law-of-war violations.
- The Fifth and Sixth Amendments do not categorically require indictment and jury trial for law-of-war offenses triable by military commission; those guarantees do not abolish military tribunals for unlawful enemy belligerents.
- U.S. citizenship does not immunize an individual from being treated as an enemy belligerent for purposes of military commission jurisdiction when the individual aligns with enemy forces and engages in hostile wartime acts.

## Conclusion

The Court held that unlawful enemy belligerents captured in the United States while carrying out wartime sabotage may be tried by a lawfully constituted military commission authorized under congressional war legislation, that habeas review remains available to test the commission’s legality, and that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments do not require civilian indictment and jury trial in that setting.


Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942)