## Facts

- William S. Girard, a U.S. Army specialist stationed in Japan, was on duty at a firing range guarding a machine gun.
- Japanese civilians were in the area collecting expended cartridge cases.
- Girard fired an empty cartridge case from a grenade launcher; it struck a Japanese woman, causing her death.
- U.S.–Japan arrangements governing U.S. forces in Japan allocated criminal jurisdiction through a Security Treaty and an implementing Administrative Agreement, later amended by a Protocol.
- Under the amended agreement, when the United States and Japan had concurrent jurisdiction, the state with the “primary right” to prosecute could waive that right at the other state’s request.
- For acts performed in the line of official duty, U.S. military authorities had the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over U.S. servicemembers.
- The United States initially asserted Girard acted in performance of official duty; Japan asserted he acted beyond the scope of official duty and that Japan had the primary right.
- After negotiations and with approval at the highest executive levels, the United States agreed to waive whatever primary jurisdiction it might have and to deliver Girard to Japanese authorities.
- Japan indicted Girard for causing death by wounding.

## Issues

1. Whether the Security Treaty, as ratified by the Senate, authorized the Executive to enter and implement the jurisdictional arrangements in the Administrative Agreement and Protocol, including the waiver mechanism.
2. Whether any constitutional or statutory limit barred the United States, in these circumstances, from waiving its primary right to try Girard and delivering him to Japanese authorities for trial.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment granting declaratory and injunctive relief preventing Girard’s delivery to Japan.
- The Court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus.
- The Court held Senate ratification of the Security Treaty, with awareness of the accompanying implementing arrangements, authorized the Administrative Agreement and subsequent Protocol provisions governing criminal jurisdiction.
- The Court held there was no constitutional or statutory barrier, as applied, to the United States waiving jurisdiction and delivering Girard to Japanese authorities.
- The Court stated that, absent constitutional or statutory infringement, the policy judgment about such jurisdictional arrangements belongs to the political branches.

## Legal Principles

- A territorial sovereign generally has jurisdiction over offenses committed within its borders unless it consents to surrender that jurisdiction.
- Treaty-based status-of-forces arrangements may allocate and permit waiver of criminal jurisdiction between the United States and a host nation.
- A U.S. servicemember does not, by force of this decision, have a constitutional entitlement to insist on prosecution exclusively in U.S. tribunals for an offense committed in the territory of a foreign sovereign when valid agreements permit host-nation prosecution.
- Courts will not invalidate jurisdictional allocations negotiated and approved by the political branches absent a conflict with the Constitution or an applicable statute.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld the Executive’s authority, operating within a Senate-ratified treaty framework, to waive the United States’ primary jurisdiction and transfer a U.S. soldier to Japan for prosecution, finding no constitutional or statutory impediment and treating the wisdom of the arrangement as a matter for the political branches.


Wilson v. Girard, 354 U.S. 524 (1957)