Johnson v. Eisentrager
-
What is the Johnson v. Eisentrager law case?
Johnson v. Eisentrager is a U.S. Supreme Court case from 1950 regarding whether non-resident enemy aliens can petition U.S. courts for writs of habeas corpus. The court ruled they could not. The case involved German military members arrested in China after World War II and imprisoned in Germany for gathering intelligence for the Japanese after Germany's surrender.
Justice Robert H. Jackson stated that because the German prisoners were neither U.S. citizens nor on U.S. soil when arrested, they could not claim Fifth Amendment protection. Justice Hugo L. Black dissented, arguing that U.S. jurisdiction extends to any place where the U.S. government is in command, such as U.S.-occupied Germany.
The Supreme Court reexamined and reversed Johnson v. Eisentrager in 2004 in Rasul v. Bush and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, deciding that U.S. courts can respond to habeas corpus petitions of nonresident enemy aliens.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Who were the people involved in the Johnson v. Eisentrager case?
Johnson v. Eisentrager was a U.S. Supreme Court case about whether non-resident enemy aliens could petition U.S. courts for writs of habeas corpus.
Following the Japanese surrender at the close of World War II, the U.S. Army arrested German military members for spying. One of those convicted, Lothar Eisentrager, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a U.S. district court on behalf of himself and 20 other imprisoned colleagues. Justice Robert H. Jackson spoke for the 6ā3 majority who ruled against the petitioners. Justice Hugo L. Black dissented.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What legal issue was addressed in Johnson v. Eisentrager?
Johnson v. Eisentrager is a U.S. Supreme Court case addressing whether non-resident enemy aliens have the right to petition U.S. courts for writs of habeas corpus, which is a prisoner's request for a court to determine the legality of their imprisonment.
In 1950, the Supreme Court ruled they did not have this right. However, the Supreme Court reexamined and reversed this ruling in 2004 in light of the detention of alleged al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The court held that U.S. courts may respond to habeas corpus petitions of nonresident enemy aliens.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Why were the German prisoners at the center of the case not allowed to file habeas corpus petitions?
In Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950), the Supreme Court decided that non-resident enemy aliens do not have the right to petition U.S. courts for writs of habeas corpus. The German prisoners at the center of the case were not permitted to petition U.S. courts because they were neither U.S. citizens nor situated on U.S. soil when apprehended. The court stated that under those circumstances, they could not receive the protection of due process as outlined in the Fifth Amendment.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What did the Supreme Court decide in Johnson v. Eisentrager?
In Johnson v. Eisentrager, the Supreme Court ruled in 1950 that nonresident enemy aliens do not have the right to petition U.S. courts for writs of habeas corpus. This case involved German military members arrested in China after World War II and imprisoned in Germany.
Justice Robert H. Jackson, speaking for the majority, stated that because the German prisoners were neither U.S. citizens nor arrested on U.S. soil, they could not claim Fifth Amendment due process protections.
However, after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Supreme Court reversed this ruling in 2004, deciding that U.S. courts may respond to habeas corpus petitions of nonresident enemy aliens.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
How did Johnson v. Eisentrager affect the rights of foreign nationals held outside the United States?
Johnson v. Eisentrager is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court ruled in 1950 that nonresident enemy aliens do not have the right to petition U.S. courts for writs of habeas corpus, which is a prisonerās petition requesting that the court determine the legality of his or her incarceration.
The court held that German prisoners were not permitted to petition U.S. courts because they were neither U.S. citizens nor situated on U.S. soil when they were arrested. Therefore, they could not receive the protection of due process as set forth in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
In 2004, the Supreme Court reversed the Johnson v. Eisentrager ruling in Rasul v. Bush and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. The court held that U.S. courts may respond to the habeas corpus petitions of nonresident enemy aliens.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.
Johnson v. Eisentrager, U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court ruled in 1950 that nonresident enemy aliens do not have the legal right to petition U.S. courts for writs of habeas corpusāa prisonerās petition requesting that the court determine the legality of his or her incarceration. This landmark Supreme Court case was reexamined in 2008 in light of the detention of alleged al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
After the Japanese surrender at the end of World War II, the U.S. Army arrested and imprisoned more than 20 members of the German military. They were apprehended in China and charged with gathering and transmitting intelligence about the U.S. military to the Japanese in the months after the German surrender in May 1945.
U.S. Army officials transferred the German agents to Landsberg Prison in Germany, a prisoner-of-war camp maintained by the U.S. occupation forces. The German men were convicted of violating the terms of the German surrender, which had ordered that all hostilities toward the Allied forces end. One of those convicted, Lothar Eisentrager, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a U.S. district court on his own behalf and for that of 20 of his imprisoned colleagues.
After a series of appeals and court hearings, the case was heard in the Supreme Court. Speaking for the 6ā3 majority who ruled against the petitioners, Justice Robert H. Jackson stated that the German prisoners were not permitted to petition U.S. courts, because they were neither U.S. citizens nor situated on U.S. soil when they were arrested. Therefore, they could not receive the protection of due process as set forth in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Justice Jackson added that there had never been a case in any nation in which a writ of habeas corpus was recognized under those circumstances.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Hugo L. Black countered that an enemy alien imprisoned by the U.S. government during peacetime has the right to submit a habeas corpus petition, even if he or she is not in a U.S. territory and has never been to the United States. He argued that U.S. jurisdiction includes any place where the U.S. government is in command. In this case, U.S.-occupied Germany was indeed under the jurisdiction of the United States at the time.
After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the Afghan War that followed, the administration of President George W. Bush authorized the arrest and detainment of a number of suspected terrorists. Most of the alleged al-Qaeda and Taliban members, both foreign nationals and U.S. citizens, were incarcerated at the U.S. naval base at GuantƔnamo Bay in Cuba.
On June 28, 2004, the Supreme Court decided two casesāRasul v. Bush and Hamdi v. Rumsfeldāinvolving detainees in the war on terrorism. In their decisions, the court reversed the ruling it had made more than 50 years earlier in Johnson v. Eisentrager. In a 6ā3 decision, the court held that U.S. courts may respond to the habeas corpus petitions of nonresident enemy aliens.
The trusted destination for professionals, college students, and lifelong learners.
SUBSCRIBE
