Moyer v. Peabody

Last updated

Moyer v. Peabody
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 5–6, 1909
Decided January 18, 1909
Full case nameCharles H. Moyer, Plaintiff in Error, v. James H. Peabody, Sherman M. Bell, and Bulkeley Wells
Citations212 U.S. 78 ( more )
29 S. Ct. 235; 53 L. Ed. 410; 1909 U.S. LEXIS 1798
Case history
PriorError to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado
Holding
Affirmed dismissal of detainee's action for wrongful imprisonment against the ex-Governor, former Adjutant General of the national guard, and a national guard company captain.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Melville Fuller
Associate Justices
John M. Harlan  · David J. Brewer
Edward D. White  · Rufus W. Peckham
Joseph McKenna  · Oliver W. Holmes Jr.
William R. Day  · William H. Moody
Case opinion
MajorityHolmes, joined by Fuller, Harlan, Brewer, White, Peckham, McKenna, Day
Moody took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Moyer v. Peabody, 212 U.S. 78 (1909), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the governor and officers of a state National Guard, acting in good faith and under authority of law, may imprison without probable cause a citizen of the United States in a time of insurrection and deny that citizen the right of habeas corpus.

Contents

Background

The case arose out of a wave of labor disputes, known as the Colorado Labor Wars, in the mining industry in the state of Colorado. In August 1902, the Western Federation of Miners (WFM) organized mill workers in Colorado City, Colorado. The employers planted a spy in the union, and the evidence of union activity gathered by the mole led to the dismissal of 42 union members. Union-employer negotiations over the dismissals began almost immediately, and dragged on into 1903. With the negotiations at a standstill, the WFM struck on February 14, 1903. After the number of miners walking the picket lines grew in March and April, the mine owners decided to seek state aid.

Governor James Peabody was strongly anti-union, and the employers worked with him to craft a response that would break the strike and the union. Although Colorado City was quiet and no public disorders of any magnitude had occurred, the employers and local authorities claimed extensive rioting had occurred and that local and county law enforcement were unable to handle the mobs. Governor Peabody called out the Colorado militia, investing them around Colorado City. Outraged miners in nearby Cripple Creek and the western city of Telluride also walked off the job, and the militia was deployed in those cities as well.

Mass arrests began in September 1903, breaking the strike. [1] [2] [3] One of those arrested was Charles Moyer.

Moyer had traveled to Telluride to protest the mass arrests and deportation of miners. He lent his signature to a WFM poster (see right) denouncing the arrests. Moyer was arrested on March 28, 1904, for desecrating the American flag. He was released on bail, but re-arrested the following day on the orders of the Adjutant General of the state militia on the grounds of "military necessity." [1] [3]

Moyer's predicament was not unusual. The state militia had detained hundreds of striking workers and union leaders for many weeks in bullpens and had disregarded hundreds of habeas corpus petitions. [3] [4]

Moyer petitioned a Colorado state court for a writ of habeas corpus, which was granted. However, the Colorado State Attorney General and the local district attorney refused to honor the writ. Moyer appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court. On June 6, 1904, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in In re Moyer, [5] that Moyer's constitutional right to due process and habeas corpus had not been violated. The court held that the governor had acted under color of state law and that the courts had no jurisdiction to review the governor's finding that a state of insurrection existed in Colorado. [1] [3]

Moyer appealed to the U.S. District Court in Missouri, and obtained a writ of habeas corpus on July 5, 1904. [6]

Alarmed by the writ, Governor Peabody revoked the finding of insurrection the same day and ordered Moyer released by 3:45 p.m. before the federal writ could be served. Moyer was released but continued to press his case. The U.S. Supreme Court accepted certiorari, and oral argument occurred on January 5 and January 6, 1909. [3] [7]

Decision

The poster "Is Colorado in America?" with its American flag, with signature by Charles Moyer (bottom, left), which led to Moyer's arrest in 1904 and the Supreme Court case of Moyer v. Peabody. Is Colorado in America.jpg
The poster "Is Colorado in America?" with its American flag, with signature by Charles Moyer (bottom, left), which led to Moyer's arrest in 1904 and the Supreme Court case of Moyer v. Peabody.

Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. delivered the opinion for a unanimous court. The decision was seven paragraphs long with the first three paragraphs devoted to determining the jurisdiction of the court.

Holmes began by refusing to question whether a state of insurrection actually existed in Colorado. "It is admitted, as it must be, that the Governor's declaration that a state of insurrection existed is conclusive of that fact," Holmes wrote. [8] "The facts that we are to assume are that a state of insurrection existed and that the Governor, without sufficient reason but in good faith, in the course of putting the insurrection down held the plaintiff until he thought that he safely could release him. [9] Holmes then made what is considered a famous statement about due process: "But it is familiar that what is due process of law depends on circumstances. It varies with the subject-matter and the necessities of the situation." [10]

The existence of the state of insurrection was, therefore, critical. Both the state constitution and the statutes gave the governor the power to call out the militia, put down rebellion, and hold rebels without providing for relief. Holmes incorporated the findings of the Colorado Supreme Court in his opinion andonce more refused to entertain any arguments to the contrary: "In such a situation we must assume that he had a right under the state constitution and laws to call out troops, as was held by the Supreme Court of the State." [9] But Holmes' assumptions were not ironclad. He left open the door for plaintiffs to challenge whether or not a state of insurrection did, in fact, exist. In this case, however, the plaintiff did not do so. [11]

Absent any such challenge by the plaintiff to the factual situation, Holmes concluded that plaintiffs have no recourse under law. Holmes placed his faith utterly in the democratic process and a citizenry's ability to elect leaders of "good faith:"

So long as such arrests are made in good faith and in the honest belief that they are needed in order to head the insurrection off, the Governor is the final judge and cannot be subjected to an action after he is out of office on the ground that he had not reasonable ground for his belief. [12]

The judgment left plaintiffs one straw to cling to. Holmes suggested in dicta that plaintiffs might have grounds if their imprisonment were lengthy: "If we suppose a Governor with a very long term of office," Holmes hypothesized, "it may be that a case could be imagined in which the length of the imprisonment would raise a different question. [12] However, since Moyer's incarceration had lasted only four months, it was implied that the line had not been crossed. [13]

Moody took no part in the case due to an extensive illness.[ citation needed ]

Aftermath

Moyer v. Peabody was long moot by the time the case reached the Supreme Court, which accepted the case only because it arose under demurrer, which challenged the legal sufficiency of the government's action. Oddly, although the case was accepted on demurrer, the Court refused to acknowledge that Moyer had in fact contested Peabody's finding that a state of insurrection existed in Colorado in 1904.

Effect on the labor movement

Historians argue that the case radicalized a significant portion of the American labor movement. Moyer himself concluded that the state's use of military power to crush unions could be countered only by a syndicalist union linked to a potent political party. Subsequently, Moyer and the WFM helped found the radical Industrial Workers of the World in 1905. While Samuel Gompers and the American Federation of Labor sought an accommodation with capitalism and the status quo, a large minority of American workers did not, and another three decades of labor unrest was caused, in part, by desperate workers who felt that the courts were closed to them. [2] [4] [14]

Moyer v. Peabody had its foundation in previous court rulings in the United States and spawned a number of subsequent decisions. It was one in a long line of cases extending back through Ex parte Merryman , 17 F. Cas. 144 (1861), [15] Ex parte Benedict, 3 F. Cas. 159 (N.D.N.Y. 1862), [16] and Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866). [17] [18] In this regard, it has a lengthy legal pedigree. But the case also spawned a new line of legal analysis. For example, one Supreme Court justice called Moyer the foundation of the "'good-faith' analysis…of our modern doctrine of qualified immunity." [19]

Despite the firm grounding Moyer v. Peabody has in US constitutional law, the case is considered to be controversial. In Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849), the US Supreme Court had established the "political question" test in which a court may refuse to rule because the issue is political, rather than judicial. Moyer is controversial in part because Justice Holmes took much of the dicta in Luther and made it binding law. The decision is controversial also because despite the analysis in Ex parte Benedict,Moyer allowed states to implement martial law without judicial review. [20]

Although Moyer focused on the immediacy of war, the aspect of the ruling has proven troublesome to the courts. Earlier Supreme Court decisions had emphasized the importance of the existence of open conflict. For example, in Mitchell v. Harmony, 54 U.S. (13 How.) 115 (1851), [21] the Supreme Court upheld the power of military officials to seize property to prevent violence. But the Court limited that power by requiring the danger to be immediate. In some ways, Moyer retreats from the court's ruling in Mitchell: Holmes accepted the case under demurrer, but then refused to consider Moyer's challenge to the finding of a state of emergency. Moyer nevertheless stands in the tradition of Mitchell because the Moyer court recognized that only immediate violence was grounds for suspending the writ. [13]

The vexing problem of immediacy would cause the Supreme Court to later back away from Holmes' ruling in Moyer. Just a quarter of a century later, in Sterling v. Constantin , 287 U.S. 378 (1932), the Court held (contra Moyer) that executive findings of a state of insurrection must be subject to judicial review. In Sterling, the governor of Texas had restricted production of oil from certain wells by claiming that a state of insurrection existed in some areas of his state. The Supreme Court concluded that such claims of insurrection were subject to judicial review, and after review, the Court actually rejected the governor's finding. Citing Mitchell v. Harmony, the Court endorsed "the argument that without judicial review, the boundaries setting apart real emergencies will break down. Chief Justice Hughes explicitly articulated the fear that if emergency powers are beyond court scrutiny then soon all government action will be characterized as an emergency." [13]

For most of the 20th century, Supreme Court jurisprudence ignored Moyer. Prior to 2004, the last decision to rely heavily on Moyer was Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 in 1973. In Scheuer v. Rhodes, survivors of the victims of the Kent State shootings of 1970 sued the Ohio Army National Guard for damages. A lower court rejected the suit, using the rationale provided in Moyer. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed, "emptying the Moyer precedent of most of its residual authority." [22] [23]

After the 9/11 attacks, however, Moyer took on new significance. In 2004, the case was thoroughly discussed in the Supreme Court's "illegal enemy combatant" decision, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld . [24] The Moyer case may take on increasing significance in the future as the "War on Terror" continues: "The ruling's appeal to present-day government lawyers is obvious. The administration has taken pains to emphasize that the Padilla detention order—like the order establishing the ground rules for military commissions—was signed by President Bush in the exercise of his authority as commander-in-chief. And if a state governor playing commander-in-chief can persuade the courts to rubber-stamp his abusive actions, surely a President can, too." [23]

See also

Notes

  1. 1 2 3 Suggs, Colorado's War on Militant Unionism: James H. Peabody and the Western Federation of Miners, 1972.
  2. 1 2 Dubofsky, We Shall Be All: A History of the Industrial Workers of the World, 2000.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 Foner, History of the Labor Movement in the United States, Vol. 3, 1964.
  4. 1 2 Forbath, "The Shaping of the American Labor Movement," Harvard Law Review, April 1989.
  5. ↑ In re Moyer,35Colo.163.
  6. ↑ Moyer v. Peabody,148Fed.870(1906)..
  7. ↑ Historians see Peabody's actions as evidence that the governor knew that no state of insurrection existed and that the "military necessity" of imprisoning Moyer was lacking. See, for example, Suggs, Colorado's War on Militant Unionism: James H. Peabody and the Western Federation of Miners, 1972.
  8. ↑ Moyer v. Peabody, 212 U.S. 78, 83; emphasis added.
  9. 1 2 Moyer v. Peabody, 212 U.S. 78, 84; emphasis added.
  10. ↑ Moyer v. Peabody, 212 U.S. 78, 84.
  11. ↑ "It is not alleged that his judgment was not honest, if that be material, or that the plaintiff was detained after fears of the insurrection were at an end.... But there is nothing... in the allegations of the complaint that would warrant submitting the judgment of the Governor to revision by a jury." Moyer v. Peabody, 212 U.S. 78, 85.
  12. 1 2 Moyer v. Peabody, 212 U.S. 78, 85.
  13. 1 2 3 Chertoff, "Judicial Review of the President's Decisions as Commander in Chief," Rutgers Law Review, Summer 2003.
  14. ↑ Fink, Biographical Dictionary of American Labor, 1984.
  15. ↑ Where the president had suspended the writ of habeas corpus "within the vicinity of the military line" during war, held neither the president nor authorize a military officer could suspend the write of habeas corpus absent congressional authority.
  16. ↑ Where pacifist is arrested and imprisoned during time of war by military officer, held writ of habeas corpus may not be suspended absent statutory authority.
  17. ↑ Where, in time of war, plaintiff was accused of planning to steal weapons, liberate prisoners of war, and take over state government, held that suspension of habeas corpus was lawful but military tribunals did not apply to citizens in states that had upheld the authority of the Constitution and where civilian courts were still operating.
  18. ↑ Vladeck, "The Detention Power," Yale Law & Policy Review, Winter 2004.
  19. ↑ Hamdi v. Rumsfeld , 542 U.S. 507 (2004), Scalia, dissenting, at 572, Footnote 4.
  20. ↑ Weida, "A Republic of Emergencies: Martial Law in American Jurisprudence," Connecticut Law Review, Summer 2004.
  21. ↑ Where military officer had seized weapons believed to be headed for enemy hands during war but in a peaceful locale, held seizure of weapons must be with probable cause and subject to due process.
  22. ↑ Quoted in Rostow, McDougal and Reisman, Power and Policy in Quest of the Law: Essays in Honor of Eugene Victor Rostow, 1985.
  23. 1 2 Mariner, Joanne (September 17, 2002). "Indefinite Detention: Using Outdated Precedents To Defend Unjust Policies". Writ .
  24. ↑ Hamdi v. Rumsfeld , 542 U.S. 507 (2004).

Related Research Articles

Habeas corpus is a recourse in law through which a person can report an unlawful detention or imprisonment to a court and request that the court order the custodian of the person, usually a prison official, to bring the prisoner to court, to determine whether the detention is lawful.

Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that ruled that the use of military tribunals to try civilians when civil courts are operating is unconstitutional. In this particular case, the Court was unwilling to give President Abraham Lincoln's administration the power of military commission jurisdiction, part of the administration's controversial plan to deal with Union dissenters during the American Civil War. Justice David Davis, who delivered the majority opinion, stated that "martial rule can never exist when the courts are open" and confined martial law to areas of "military operations, where war really prevails", and when it was a necessity to provide a substitute for a civil authority that had been overthrown. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase and three associate justices filed a separate opinion concurring with the majority in the judgment, but asserting that Congress had the power to authorize a military commission, although it had not done so in Milligan's case.

"Prerogative writ" is a historic term for a writ that directs the behavior of another arm of government, such as an agency, official, or other court. It was originally available only to the Crown under English law, and reflected the discretionary prerogative and extraordinary power of the monarch. The term may be considered antiquated, and the traditional six comprising writs are often called the extraordinary writs and described as extraordinary remedies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Western Federation of Miners</span> Labor union of miners and metalworkers in western USA and Canada (1893-1967)

The Western Federation of Miners (WFM) was a labor union that gained a reputation for militancy in the mines of the western United States and British Columbia. Its efforts to organize both hard rock miners and smelter workers brought it into sharp conflicts – and often pitched battles – with both employers and governmental authorities. One of the most dramatic of these struggles occurred in the Cripple Creek district of Colorado in 1903–1904; the conflicts were thus dubbed the Colorado Labor Wars. The WFM also played a key role in the founding of the Industrial Workers of the World in 1905 but left that organization several years later.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">James Hamilton Peabody</span> American politician (1852–1917)

James Hamilton Peabody was the 13th and 15th Governor of Colorado, and is noted by some for his public service in Cañon City and by others for his brutality in crushing the miners' strike in Cripple Creek in 1903–04.

A writ of coram nobis is a legal order allowing a court to correct its original judgment upon discovery of a fundamental error that did not appear in the records of the original judgment's proceedings and that would have prevented the judgment from being pronounced. The term coram nobis is Latin for "before us" and the meaning of its full form, quae coram nobis resident, is "which [things] remain in our presence". The writ of coram nobis originated in the courts of common law in the English legal system during the sixteenth century.

Moore et al. v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 (1923), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled 6–2 that the defendants' mob-dominated trials deprived them of due process guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It reversed the district court's decision declining the petitioners' writ of habeas corpus. This case was a precedent for the Supreme Court's review of state criminal trials in terms of their compliance with the Bill of Rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Charles Moyer</span>

Charles H. Moyer was an American labor leader and president of the Western Federation of Miners (WFM) from 1902 to 1926. He led the union through the Colorado Labor Wars, was accused of murdering an ex-governor of the state of Idaho, and was shot in the back during a bitter copper mine strike. He also was a leading force in founding the Industrial Workers of the World, although he later denounced the organization.

In United States law, habeas corpus is a recourse challenging the reasons or conditions of a person's confinement under color of law. A petition for habeas corpus is filed with a court that has jurisdiction over the custodian, and if granted, a writ is issued directing the custodian to bring the confined person before the court for examination into those reasons or conditions. The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Colorado Labor Wars</span> Series of labor strikes in Colorado which were violently put down by employers (1903-04)

The Colorado Labor Wars were a series of labor strikes in 1903 and 1904 in the U.S. state of Colorado, by gold and silver miners and mill workers represented by the Western Federation of Miners (WFM). Opposing the WFM were associations of mine owners and businessmen at each location, supported by the Colorado state government. The strikes were notable and controversial for the accompanying violence, and the imposition of martial law by the Colorado National Guard in order to put down the strikes.

Philippine habeas corpus cases are cases decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, which invoke the writ of habeas corpus.

In United States law, habeas corpus is a recourse challenging the reasons or conditions of a person's detention under color of law. The Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a United States military prison located within Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. A persistent standard of indefinite detention without trial and incidents of torture led the operations of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp to be challenged internationally as an affront to international, and challenged domestically as a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution, including the right of petition for habeas corpus. In 19 February 2002, Guantanamo detainees petitioned in federal court for a writ of habeas corpus to review the legality of their detention.

In the Philippines, amparo and habeas data are prerogative writs to supplement the inefficacy of the writ of habeas corpus. Amparo means 'protection,' while habeas data is 'access to information.' Both writs were conceived to solve the extensive Philippine extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances since 1999.

Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U.S. 283 (1975), is a U.S. Supreme Court case which held that when state law permits a defendant to plead guilty without giving up his right to judicial review of specified constitutional issues, such as the lawfulness of a search or the voluntariness of a confession, the defendant is not prevented from pursuing those constitutional claims in a federal habeas corpus proceeding.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sherman Bell</span>

Adjutant General Sherman M. Bell was a controversial leader of the Colorado National Guard during the Colorado Labor Wars of 1903–04. While Bell received high praise from Theodore Roosevelt and others, he was vilified as a tyrant by members of the Western Federation of Miners (WFM).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Habeas Corpus Suspension Act (1863)</span> American Law during the Civil War

The Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, 12 Stat. 755 (1863), entitled An Act relating to Habeas Corpus, and regulating Judicial Proceedings in Certain Cases, was an Act of Congress that authorized the president of the United States to suspend the right of habeas corpus in response to the American Civil War and provided for the release of political prisoners. It began in the House of Representatives as an indemnity bill, introduced on December 5, 1862, releasing the president and his subordinates from any liability for having suspended habeas corpus without congressional approval. The Senate amended the House's bill, and the compromise reported out of the conference committee altered it to qualify the indemnity and to suspend habeas corpus on Congress's own authority. Abraham Lincoln signed the bill into law on March 3, 1863, and suspended habeas corpus under the authority it granted him six months later. The suspension was partially lifted with the issuance of Proclamation 148 by Andrew Johnson, and the Act became inoperative with the end of the Civil War. The exceptions to his Proclamation 148 were the States of Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas, the District of Columbia, and the Territories of New Mexico and Arizona.

The Habeas Corpus Act of 1867 is an act of Congress that significantly expanded the jurisdiction of federal courts to issue writs of habeas corpus. Passed February 5, 1867, the Act amended the Judiciary Act of 1789 to grant the courts the power to issue writs of habeas corpus "in all cases where any person may be restrained of his or her liberty in violation of the constitution, or any treaty or law of the United States." Prior to the Act's passage, prisoners in the custody of one of the states who wished to challenge the legality of their detention could petition for a writ of habeas corpus only in state courts; the federal court system was barred from issuing writs of habeas corpus in their cases. The Act also permitted the court "to go beyond the return" and question the truth of the jailer's stated justification for detaining the petitioning prisoner, whereas prior to the Act courts were technically bound to accept the jailer's word that the prisoner was actually being held for the reason stated. The Act largely restored habeas corpus following its 1863 suspension by Congress, ensuring that anyone arrested after its passage could challenge their detention in the federal courts, but denied habeas relief to anyone who was already in military custody for any military offense or for having aided the Confederacy.

Martial law in the United States refers to times in United States history in which in a region, state, city, or the whole United States was placed under the control of a military body. On a national level, both the US President and the US Congress have the power, within certain constraints, to impose martial law since both can be in charge of the militia. In each state, the governor has the power to impose martial law within the borders of the state. In the United States, martial law has been used in a limited number of circumstances, such as New Orleans during the Battle of New Orleans; after major disasters, such as the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, or during riots, such as the Omaha race riot of 1919 or the 1920 Lexington riots; local leaders declared martial law to protect themselves from mob violence, such as Nauvoo, Illinois, during the Illinois Mormon War, or Utah during the Utah War; or in response to chaos associated with protests and rioting, such as the 1934 West Coast waterfront strike, in Hawaii after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and during the Civil Rights Movement in response to the Cambridge riot of 1963.

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which limits habeas corpus judicial review of the decisions of immigration officers, violates the Suspension Clause of Article One of the U.S. Constitution. In the 7–2 opinion, the Court ruled that the law does not violate the Suspension Clause.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.