Reid v. Covert

Last updated
Reid v. Covert
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued May 3, 1956
Reargued February 27, 1957
Decided June 10, 1957
Full case nameReid, Superintendent, District of Columbia Jail v. Clarice Covert
Citations354 U.S. 1 ( more )
77 S. Ct. 1222; 1 L. Ed. 2d 1148; 1957 U.S. LEXIS 729
Holding
The military may not deprive American civilians of their Bill of Rights protections by trying them in a military tribunal.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas  · Harold H. Burton
Tom C. Clark  · John M. Harlan II
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Charles E. Whittaker
Case opinions
PluralityBlack, joined by Warren, Douglas, Brennan
ConcurrenceFrankfurter
ConcurrenceHarlan
DissentClark, joined by Burton
Whittaker took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Art. VI

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), was a 6-to-2 landmark decision of the US Supreme Court holding that U.S. citizen civilians outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States cannot be tried by U.S. military tribunal, but instead retain the protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution, in this case, trial by jury. Additionally, a plurality of the Court also reaffirmed the president’s ability to enter into international executive agreements, though it held that such agreements cannot contradict federal law or the Constitution.

Contents

Background

The case involved Clarice Covert, who had been convicted by a military tribunal of murdering her husband. At the time of her alleged offense, an executive agreement was in effect between the United States and United Kingdom, which permitted US military courts to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over offenses by U.S. servicemen or their dependents.

The court initially ruled against Mrs. Covert, but changed its mind and issued a new decision in her favor after her lawyer, Frederick Bernays Wiener, famously made a successful petition for rehearing. This is the only time the Supreme Court, without a relevant change in its membership, has changed its mind as the result of a petition for rehearing. [1]

Opinion of the Court

The Court found: "No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution." [2] The Court's core holding of the case is that U.S. citizen civilians abroad have the right to Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment constitutional protections. [3]

The Court found it unconstitutional to adjudge U.S. citizen civilians in military courts, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. [4]

The Court agreed with the petitioners, concluding that as United States citizens they were entitled to the protections of the Bill of Rights, notwithstanding that they committed crimes on foreign soil. The Court distinguished Reid from the Insular Cases: The "Insular Cases" can be distinguished from the present cases in that they involved the power of Congress to provide rules and regulations to govern temporarily territories with wholly dissimilar traditions and institutions. [5]

Justice Black declared: "The concept that the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections against arbitrary government are inoperative when they become inconvenient or when expediency dictates otherwise is a very dangerous doctrine and if allowed to flourish would destroy the benefit of a written Constitution and undermine the basis of our government." [5]

Justice Harlan's concurred with the judgment of the Court but disagreed with much of Justice Black's reasoning. He held that the court-martial per se was not unconstitutional, being an appropriate application of the Necessary and Proper Clause. [6] Harlan also explicitly stated that this power was not limited by either Article III or the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. [7]

Significance

The significance of the case lies in the protection that the United States Constitution grants to civilians who are associated with the United States armed forces and are accused of crimes. Covert and its progeny cases made clear that civilians can't be tried by military courts, but instead must be tried in civil courts regardless where the crime was committed. [8] "The Constitution does not allow Congress to pass regulations that allow the military to court-martial a civilian. To do so would deprive an individual of all the safeguards of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well as the protections of civil laws and protections. [...] Covert and its progeny unequivocally strike down military jurisdiction over civilian crimes of the United States. [...] From this point on, the Constitution was to be interpreted and ensuring that the Bill of Rights would protect all U.S. citizens accused of crimes no matter where those crimes occurred." [9]

See also

Related Research Articles

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Article of amendment to the U.S. Constitution, enumerating citizenship rights as well as civil and political liberties

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Arguably one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, and also those acting on behalf of such officials.

The Insular Cases are a series of opinions by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1901, about the status of U.S. territories acquired in the Spanish–American War, and the periods shortly thereafter. When the war ended in 1898, the United States had to answer the question of whether or not people in newly acquired territories were citizens, a question the country had never faced before. The preliminary answer came from a series of Supreme Court rulings, now known as the Insular Cases, which responded to the question of how American constitutional rights apply to those in United States territories. The Supreme Court held that full constitutional protection of rights does not automatically extend to all places under American control. This meant that inhabitants of unincorporated territories such as Puerto Rico—"even if they are U.S. citizens"—may lack some constitutional rights. Today, many legal scholars refer to the Insular Cases as a constitutional justification for colonialism and annexation of places not within United States boundaries. The Insular Cases "authorized the colonial regime created by Congress, which allowed the United States to continue its administration—and exploitation—of the territories acquired from Spain after the Spanish–American War." These Supreme Court rulings allowed for the United States government to extend unilateral power over these newly acquired territories.

Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), along with its companion case Alberts v. California, was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court which redefined the Constitutional test for determining what constitutes obscene material unprotected by the First Amendment.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

John Marshall Harlan II Former Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court

John Marshall Harlan was an American lawyer and jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1955 to 1971. Harlan is usually called John Marshall Harlan II to distinguish him from his grandfather John Marshall Harlan, who served on the Supreme Court from 1877 to 1911.

Equal Protection Clause Guarantee of law protecting all persons equally in the United States

The Equal Protection Clause is from the text of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". It mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law.

Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), was a case in which the US Supreme Court decided whether US territories were subject to the provisions and protections of the US Constitution. The issue is sometimes stated as whether the Constitution follows the flag. The decision narrowly held that the Constitution does not necessarily apply to territories. Instead, the US Congress has jurisdiction to create law within territories in certain circumstances, particularly those dealing with revenue, which would not be allowed by the Constitution for US states. It has become known as one of the "Insular Cases."

Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), is a case of the United States Supreme Court during World War II that upheld the jurisdiction of a United States military tribunal over the trial of eight German saboteurs in the United States. Quirin has been cited as a precedent for the trial by military commission of any unlawful combatant against the United States.

Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court determining that the Eleventh Amendment prohibits a citizen of a U.S. state to sue that state in a federal court. Citizens cannot bring suits against their own state for cases related to the federal constitution and federal laws. The court left open the question of whether a citizen may sue his or her state in state courts. That ambiguity was resolved in Alden v. Maine (1999), in which the Court held that a state's sovereign immunity forecloses suits against a state government in state court.

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court redefined what constitutes "searches" and "seizures" with regard to the protections of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The decision expanded the Fourth Amendment's protections from the right of search and seizures of an individual's "persons, houses, papers, and effects", as defined in the Constitution, to include "what [a person] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public" as a constitutionally protected area.

<i>Afroyim v. Rusk</i> United States Supreme Court case

Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that citizens of the United States may not be deprived of their citizenship involuntarily. The U.S. government had attempted to revoke the citizenship of Beys Afroyim, a man born in Poland, because he had cast a vote in an Israeli election after becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen. The Supreme Court decided that Afroyim's right to retain his citizenship was guaranteed by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. In so doing, the Court struck down a federal law mandating loss of U.S. citizenship for voting in a foreign election—thereby overruling one of its own precedents, Perez v. Brownell (1958), in which it had upheld loss of citizenship under similar circumstances less than a decade earlier.

Bricker Amendment Proposed bill to amend US Constitution

The Bricker Amendment is the collective name of a number of slightly different proposed amendments to the United States Constitution considered by the United States Senate in the 1950s. None of these amendments ever passed Congress. Each of them would require explicit congressional approval, especially for executive agreements that did not require the Senate's two thirds approval for treaty. They are named for their sponsor, conservative Republican Senator John W. Bricker of Ohio, who distrusted the exclusive powers of the president to involve America beyond the wishes of Congress.

Military Commissions Act of 2006 Former United States law

The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006, also known as HR-6166, was an Act of Congress signed by President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006. The Act's stated purpose was "to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes".

United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court landmark case which held that both the United States and a Native American (Indian) tribe could prosecute an Indian for the same acts that constituted crimes in both jurisdictions. The Court held that the United States and the tribe were separate sovereigns; therefore, separate tribal and federal prosecutions did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Frederick Bernays "Fritz" Wiener was an American jurist specializing in military justice and constitutional law who became famous for the 1957 case of Reid v. Covert, which represents the only time a lawyer lost in the Supreme Court of the United States but prevailed on rehearing. That case was particularly notable in that it established that "no agreement with a foreign nation [i.e., no treaty] can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution."

Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U.S. 548 (1900), was a case heard before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 30 and May 1, 1900, to decide the outcome of the disputed Kentucky gubernatorial election of 1899. The litigants were Republican gubernatorial candidate William S. Taylor and Democratic lieutenant gubernatorial candidate J. C. W. Beckham. In the November 7, 1899, election, Taylor received 193,714 votes to Democrat William Goebel's 191,331. This result was certified by a 2–1 decision of the state's Board of Elections. Goebel challenged the election results on the basis of alleged voting irregularities, and the Democrat-controlled Kentucky General Assembly formed a committee to investigate Goebel's claims. Goebel was shot on January 30, 1900, one day before the General Assembly approved the committee's report declaring enough Taylor votes invalid to swing the election to Goebel. As he lay dying of his wounds, Goebel was sworn into office on January 31, 1900. He died on February 3, 1900, and Beckham ascended to the governorship.

Kinsella v. Krueger, 351 U.S. 470 (1956), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, the Court recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty, although the case itself was with regard to an executive agreement, not a "treaty" in the U.S. legal sense, and the agreement itself has never been ruled unconstitutional.

Wilson v. Girard, 354 U.S. 524 (1957), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court refused to stop the executive branch from handing United States Army soldier William S. Girard over to Japanese authorities for trial. Girard was accused of killing a Japanese woman while assigned to the US Army in Japan.

United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11 (1955), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that expanded the rights of citizens to civilian trials, holding that an ex-serviceman cannot be court-martialed for crimes alleged during his military service.

References

  1. Reid v. Covert, The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, retrieved 2018-10-03
  2. Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 2 (1957)
  3. Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 8 (1957)
  4. Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 23 (1957)
  5. 1 2 Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 14 (1957).
  6. Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 73 (1957) (Harlan, J., concurring)
  7. Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 76 (1957) (Harlan, J., concurring)
  8. Gary R. Hartman, Roy M. Mersky and Cindy L. Tate (14 May 2014). Landmark Supreme Court Cases: The Most Influential Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States (2004) - Chapter Jurisdiction. New York City, New York, United States of America: Facts onf File, Inc. p. 464-466. ISBN   978-0-8160-2452-0 . Retrieved December 31, 2020.
  9. Gary R. Hartman, Roy M. Mersky and Cindy L. Tate (14 May 2014). Landmark Supreme Court Cases: The Most Influential Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States (2004) - Chapter Jurisdiction. New York City, New York, United States of America: Facts onf File, Inc. p. 465. ISBN   978-0-8160-2452-0 . Retrieved December 31, 2020.

Further reading