Johnson V. Eisentrager 339 U.S. Case Study

Open, View, and/or
Download this Document

Total Length: 2000 words ( 7 double-spaced pages)

Total Sources: 3

Page 1 of 7

Therefore, the claim asserted by Respondents and sustained by the court below would, in practical effect, amount to a right not to be tried at all for an offense against the U.S. armed forces. 339 U.S. 763, 782 (1950).

The Court examined the issue of whether the military authorities had jurisdiction to try the offenders. It reasoned that military authorities have had a historical right, during and after hostilities, to punish those who have violated the laws of war, and this history predates the existence of the United States, and therefore, the existence of the Constitution. Respondents' convictions were the result of a military commission exercising this historic right, and it was the military commission's sole ability to determine whether the laws of war applied to Respondents and whether Respondents had violated those laws. There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Court appellate jurisdiction over these types of military commission trials.

In fact, the Court went so far as to look into the Geneva Convention and whether it would bar this type of military commission, though the Court did not have to do so. Having already determined that the federal judiciary did not have jurisdiction over the issue, the Court was free to ignore the Geneva Convention issues. However, the Court determined that the requirement that notice of trial of prisoners of war be given to the protecting power was inapplicable to trial for war crimes committed before capture, as was the provision that prisoners of war be tried by the same courts as persons belonging to the armed forces of the detaining power.

Stuck Writing Your "Johnson V. Eisentrager 339 U.S." Case Study?

View All Our Example Johnson V. Eisentrager 339 U.S. Case Study

Have A Custom Example Essay Written

In other words, the Court determined that Respondents could be tried by military commission and were not entitled to the protections of a military court.

Conclusion: The Court refused to overturn Respondents' convictions or issue a writ of habeas corpus. The Court held that a nonresident enemy alien has no access to U.S. courts during a time of war. The Court held that the Executive Branch has power over enemy aliens, which is not to be hampered or delayed by litigation. The Court held that nonresident enemy aliens, who were captured and imprisoned abroad, had no right to a writ of habeas corpus in a court of the United States. The Court held that the Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or immunity from military trial and punishment upon any alien enemy engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States. The Court held that Respondents' petition did not allege any facts showing a lack of jurisdiction in the military authorities to accuse, try, or condemn Respondents. The Court determined that nothing in the Geneva Convention prohibited prosecution of Respondents by a military tribunal. The Court held that there was no basis for invoking federal judicial power and refused to decide were the petition should have been filed if there had been a basis for invoking such power.….....

Show More ⇣

     Open the full completed essay and source list


OR

     Order a one-of-a-kind custom essay on this topic


sample essay writing service

Cite This Resource:

Latest APA Format (6th edition)

Copy Reference
"Johnson V Eisentrager 339 U S " (2011, October 06) Retrieved July 1, 2025, from
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/johnson-eisentrager-339-us-46154

Latest MLA Format (8th edition)

Copy Reference
"Johnson V Eisentrager 339 U S " 06 October 2011. Web.1 July. 2025. <
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/johnson-eisentrager-339-us-46154>

Latest Chicago Format (16th edition)

Copy Reference
"Johnson V Eisentrager 339 U S ", 06 October 2011, Accessed.1 July. 2025,
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/johnson-eisentrager-339-us-46154
   

Open, View, and/or
Download this Document
order custom essay example