1
Case Brief: Ex Parte Quirin
Thomas Brooks
Liberty University
Peter Brake
HLSC520: Legal Issues in Homeland Security
April 2, 2023
2
CASE BRIEF: EX PARTE QUIRIN
Facts: Case summary reports that men wearing German Military uniform and carrying
explosives. Several German Soldiers, some US born, and others German born entered the US.
They were in German soldier uniform and carrying explosives, fuses, incendiary and timed
devices landed from German to the US (Ex parte Quirin, 1942). Their mission was to destroy
war facilities and capabilities in the US. In return they would be paid by the German government
for their work. Before they started their mission, they attended German sabotage school. Once
arrested, President Roosevelt ordered for the men to be tried in a military tribunal (Ex parte
Quirin, 1942). The men were charged with violating the law of war by engaging in attempted
sabotage out of military uniform.
Procedural History: The case started in the military tribunal. The District Court of Columbia
denied the initial application of Habeas Corpus. The petitioners sent an appeal to the US Courts
of appeal. Before a decision was made by the appeals courts the request was sent to the US
Supreme Court.
Issue: The courts were challenged with determining if the President exceeded his authority by
ordering a military trial instead of the case being heard in civil court.
Rule(s): Under the Articles of War and Executive Orders of the United States, both the president
and Congress are legally authorized to convene a military court to try unauthorized enemies for
violations of the law of war (Ex parte Quirin, 1942). The United States Constitution grants the
president the authority to proclaim warfare and bring into action any legislation enacted by
Congress for the behavior of warfare and the administration and control of the military, as well
as all laws pertaining to the performance of war (Ex parte Quirin, 1942). Article 15, 38, and 46 of
the article of war was utilized to determine that the military commission was authorized to hold a
3
trial and punishment of combatants who violated the law of war. Article 15 directly identifies the
jurisdictional authority of military courts in violation of the law of war. On July 2, 1942
Presidential declaration was issued to establish that all individuals of another government at war
with the US who try to enter the US and are charged with crimes against the war of law will be
under military court jurisdiction (Ex parte Quirin, 1942).
Application/Analysis: When the unlawful enemy combatants changed out of German soldier
uniform it prevented them from being classified as prisoners of war, which could have made
them privilege to different rights. Once their status was identified, the courts utilized the law of
war and the constitution to justify the detention and trial under military courts. The courts
established that an invasion into the US during way times removed the rights to review through
habeas corpus (Ex parte Quirin, 1942). Another key consideration was identified through the
recognizing of the president’s power during wartime over invaders who have intentions of
causing harm. This was obtained by acknowledging the petitioners went through sabotage school
and were being paid for their services. The rules under the law of war address both citizens and
aliens to be tried by military courts during wartime (Ex parte Quirin, 1942). It was determined
that under the constitution, prisoners of war do not have the privilege under the 5th and 6th
amendment like ordinary citizens. The biggest question was to classify the combatants once
identities were established as unlawful combatants. The constitution and articles of war
established who jurisdictions are granted to. This case was not to find guilt but to utilize the
facts of the case to classify the status of the petitioners as unlawful combatants. Under this status
the constitution and articles of war were utilized to justify which courts maintaining jurisdiction
under the Presidential directive.
4
Conclusion: The petitioners did not have the same rights as US citizens. They were unlawful
enemy combatants that were on a mission by the German Government during active wartime to
sabotage war facilities. A military tribunal was legal under these circumstances and did not
violate the constitution.
