The President during War and National Emergencies

What did the Court decide in The Prize Cases (1863)?

(1863), the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that President Lincoln acted within his constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief to institute a blockade of Southern ports in April 1861 without a formal Congressional declaration of war. The Court held that a state of civil war existed, authorizing the President to resist insurrection (rebellion against gov)

In Ex parte Milligan (1866), should Milligan have been tried by a military commission? Why or why not?

ruled 9-0, it is unconstitutional to try civilians by military tribunals unless there is no civilian court available. The military commission therefore did not have jurisdiction to try and sentence Milligan, and he was entitled to discharge.

Scholars have written that the war making power is a shared power between Congress and the President. Relying upon Articles I and II, the War Powers Act (1973), and relevant case law, does Congress have the power to prevent a President from starting a war in the future if the public opposes such action? Why or why not?

While Article I grants Congress the sole power to "declare War," and the 1973 Act provides a framework to limit troop engagement, the President's role as Commander-in-Chief (Article II) and the "political question doctrine" in case law often allow presidents to initiate or continue military action without prior congressional approval

• The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548) is the primary legislative tool, passed over a presidential veto, that authorizes Congress to compel the President to withdraw troops within 60–90 days if Congress does not authorize war. While rarely tested in court, this law asserts Congress’s constitutional power to halt military action.

What did the Court decide in Ex parte Quirin (1942)?

unanimously upheld the jurisdiction of a U.S. military commission to try eight German saboteurs—including a U.S. citizen—captured on American soil during World War II.

• The Court decided that the conspirators, as spies without uniforms tasked with sabotage, violated the laws of war and were classified as "unlawful enemy combatants"

What did the Court decide in Korematsu v. U. S. (1944)?

ruled in a 6-3 decision that the forced exclusion and detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II was constitutional. The Court held that the exclusion order was a "military necessity" driven by security concerns rather than racial prejudice, placing national safety above individual civil rights during wartime.

In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), what did the Court rule regarding presidential power and Hamdi’s due process rights? Discuss the legal reasoning behind the decision. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?

(2004), the Supreme Court ruled that while the President has the authority to detain enemy combatants, including American citizens, such citizens possess the Fifth Amendment right to challenge their detention before a neutral decision-maker. The Court affirmed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) justified detention but rejected the indefinite, unchecked detention of citizens

• Congressional Authorization: A plurality of the Court found that Congress authorized Hamdi's detention through the AUMF passed after 9/11, allowing necessary force against terrorist organizations.

• Due Process Requirement: The Court ruled that fundamental due process prevents the government from holding a U.S. citizen indefinitely without the ability to challenge the "enemy combatant" designation.

• Balancing Test: Using the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, the Court determined that the private interest of a citizen in personal liberty outweighs the government's interest in avoiding the burden of holding hearings, especially when the executive's evidence is solely based on hearsay.

• Right to Challenge: Hamdi was deemed entitled to receive notice of the factual basis for his classification and a fair opportunity to rebut it before an impartial authority