## Facts

- Kōki Hirota and other Japanese governmental and military officials were convicted as Class A war criminals by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo.
- The tribunal was established during the Allied occupation of Japan by General Douglas MacArthur acting as Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers.
- Petitioners were held in custody in Japan pursuant to the tribunal’s judgments and sentences, including death sentences and terms of imprisonment.
- Petitioners, described as residents and citizens of Japan, sought to challenge their detention in the U.S. Supreme Court.
- They filed motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus directly in the Supreme Court.
- The Court limited argument to whether it had power to grant the requested relief, focusing on jurisdiction and the character of the tribunal.

## Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court (and U.S. courts generally) has power to review, through habeas corpus, the judgments and sentences imposed by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East.
2. Whether the tribunal established by General MacArthur as agent for the Allied Powers is a “tribunal of the United States” subject to federal judicial review.

## Decision

- The Court denied the motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus.
- The Court held that the military tribunal established in Japan by General MacArthur as agent of the Allied Powers was not a tribunal of the United States.
- Because the tribunal was not a U.S. tribunal, U.S. courts had no power or authority to review, affirm, set aside, or annul its judgments and sentences.
- Justice Douglas concurred in the result.
- Justice Murphy dissented; Justice Jackson did not participate; Justice Rutledge reserved decision but died before announcing a vote.

## Legal Principles

- Federal habeas corpus jurisdiction does not extend to collateral review of judgments and sentences of an international or Allied tribunal that is not an organ of the United States.
- A tribunal created and operating under multinational authority, even if established by a U.S. commander acting for allied sovereigns, is not thereby transformed into a U.S. tribunal subject to Article III court review.
- Where the detention is pursuant to the judgment of such a non-U.S. tribunal, U.S. courts lack authority to grant habeas relief aimed at revisiting or nullifying the tribunal’s judgment.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court refused to entertain habeas petitions from Japanese nationals imprisoned under sentences of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, ruling that the tribunal functioned as an instrument of the Allied Powers rather than a U.S. tribunal and therefore lay outside the reviewing authority of U.S. courts.


Hirota v. MacArthur, 338 U.S. 197 (1948)