Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Johnson v. Eisentrager

Supreme Court of the United States · 1950 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional Lawhabeas corpusenemy aliensmilitary jurisdictionextraterritorial application of the Constitutionhabeas corpusenemy aliennonresident alien

Facts

The petitioners were German nationals who had been in China and were convicted by an American Military Commission sitting in Nanking, with Chinese consent, for violating the laws of war by continuing hostile activity against the United States after Germany's unconditional surrender and before Japan's surrender. Their activities consisted principally of collecting and furnishing intelligence to Japanese forces concerning American forces and movements. After conviction and military review, they were repatriated to Germany to serve their sentences in Landsberg Prison under the custody of an American Army officer. They had never been in the United States, were captured outside United States territory, were tried outside the United States, and were imprisoned outside the United States at all relevant times.

Issue

Whether United States courts have jurisdiction to entertain habeas corpus petitions by enemy aliens who were never present in the United States, were captured, tried, and convicted abroad by an American military commission for offenses against the laws of war committed abroad, and are imprisoned abroad by American military authorities. Relatedly, whether the Constitution confers upon such prisoners a right to personal security or immunity from military trial.

Rule

The Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or immunity from military trial and punishment upon an alien enemy engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States. United States courts do not extend habeas corpus to an enemy alien who, at no relevant time and in no stage of captivity, has been within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, where the offense, capture, trial, and confinement all occurred abroad.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

During an armed conflict, soldiers loyal to a foreign state at war with the United States were captured by U.S. forces near Basra, tried by a U.S. military commission in Kuwait for violating the laws of war, and confined in a U.S.-run prison in Qatar. None had ever entered territory sovereign to the United States. They file habeas petitions in federal court in Washington, D.C. against senior Defense officials who can direct their release.

How should the federal court rule on the petitions?

Explanation. The majority held that U.S. courts do not extend habeas corpus to an enemy alien who, at no relevant time and in no stage of captivity, has been within U.S. territorial jurisdiction, where offense, capture, trial, and confinement all occurred abroad. The presence of higher officials in Washington does not create the substantive right to the writ when no territorial basis exists.