United States Court for Berlin

Last updated

The United States Court for Berlin was a United States Article II court that had jurisdiction over American-occupied Berlin. It was in existence from 1955 until the Two plus Four Treaty in 1990.

Contents

The United States High Commissioner for Germany [lower-alpha 1] functioned until the abolition of the Allied High Commission on 5 May 1955 pursuant to the Bonn–Paris conventions. [lower-alpha 2] On 28 April 1955, only a few days before the occupation regime terminated in the rest of Germany, the High Commissioner promulgated Law No. 46 [3] establishing the United States Court for Berlin.

The Court was only convened once, in 1979, [4] to hear the jury trial of the LOT Flight 165 hijacking defendants. [5] [6] The case (U.S. v. Tiede) was notable in holding that the reach of the United States Constitution was a legal rather than a political question, [7] citing jurisprudence dating back to Ex parte Milligan , [8] where the United States Supreme Court had declared, "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances." [9]

During his appointment, Judge Herbert Jay Stern was subjected to intense diplomatic pressure, which he alluded to when he sentenced Tiede to time served, and noted that there was "probably not a great future" for the Court. [10] This was confirmed at the end of the criminal trial, when a group of West Germans filed a civil suit with it alleging that a US military housing development violated a German zoning law. [11] Walter J. Stoessel Jr. (at that time the United States Ambassador to West Germany) advised Stern that his appointment was only for the criminal case that had been heard, and it was accordingly terminated. [12] The claimants later attempted to bring its suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, where it was dismissed. [13]

Notes

  1. ↑ created by Executive Order 10062 of 6 June 1949 [1] pursuant to the Foreign Service Act of 1946, [2]
  2. ↑ However, the conventions did not deal with the status of Berlin, in which the Allied Kommandatura continued to exercise supreme authority until 1991.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany</span> Constitution for the Federal Republic of Germany

The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany is the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany.

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 former 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.

German <i>Reich</i> Name for the German state (1871–1945)

German Reich was the constitutional name for the German nation state as it existed from 18 January 1871 to 30 April 1945. The Reich became understood as deriving its authority and sovereignty entirely from a continuing unitary German Volk, with that authority and sovereignty being exercised at any one time over a unitary German "state territory" with variable boundaries and extent. Although commonly translated as "German Empire", the word Reich here better translates as "realm" or territorial "reach", in that the term does not in itself have monarchical connotations.

A number of cases were tried before the Supreme Court of the United States during the period of the American Civil War. These cases focused on wartime civil liberties, and the ability of the various branches of the government to alter them. The following cases were among the most significant.

Judgment in Berlin is a 1984 book by federal judge Herbert Jay Stern about a hijacking trial in the United States Court for Berlin in 1979, over which he presided.

Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950), was a major decision of the US Supreme Court, where it decided that US courts had no jurisdiction over German war criminals held in a US-administered prison in Germany. The prisoners had at no time been on American sovereign territory.

Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), was a case of the United States Supreme Court that during World War II 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 unlawful combatants.

Federal tribunals in the United States are those tribunals established by the federal government of the United States for the purpose of resolving disputes involving or arising under federal laws, including questions about the constitutionality of such laws. Such tribunals include both Article III tribunals as well as adjudicative entities which are classified as Article I or Article IV tribunals. Some of the latter entities are also formally denominated as courts, but they do not enjoy certain protections afforded to Article III courts. These tribunals are described in reference to the article of the United States Constitution from which the tribunal's authority stems. The use of the term "tribunal" in this context as a blanket term to encompass both courts and other adjudicative entities comes from section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, which expressly grants Congress the power to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court of the United States.

<i>R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry, is a High Court of Australia case where the majority took a broad view of the external affairs power in the Constitution but held that the interstate trade and commerce power delineated trade and commerce within a state, rejecting an argument that the power extended to activities that were commingled with interstate activities. The court set aside a conviction for breach of the regulations as they went further than was necessary to carry out and give effect to the convention.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lambdin P. Milligan</span> American lawyer

Lambdin Purdy Milligan was an American lawyer and farmer who was the subject of Ex parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2 (1866), a landmark case by the Supreme Court of the United States. He was known for his extreme opinions on states' rights and his opposition to the Lincoln administration's conduct of the American Civil War.

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">Andrew Humphreys</span> American politician

Andrew Humphreys was a U.S. Representative from Bloomfield, Greene County, Indiana, who served in the Forty-fourth Congress. Prior to the American Civil War, Humphreys was as a member of the Indiana House of Representatives, and an Indian agent for Utah. In 1864 Humphreys was a defendant in a controversial trial by a military commission that convened on October 21 at Indianapolis, where he and three others were convicted of treason. Humphreys was sentenced to hard labor for the remainder of the war, but the sentence was modified three weeks later to allow for his release. At the end of the war, Humphreys resumed a career in politics, which included terms in Forty-fourth Congress and the Indiana Senate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Herbert Jay Stern</span> American judge (born 1936)

Herbert Jay Stern is a trial lawyer, with a national practice in civil and criminal litigation, as well as mediation and arbitration. Earlier in his career, Stern served as a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and as the United States Judge for Berlin.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Allied Control Council</span> 1945–1991 military governing body over Germany and Austria until 1955

The Allied Control Council (ACC) or Allied Control Authority, and also referred to as the Four Powers, was the governing body of the Allied occupation zones in Germany (1945–1949/1991) and Austria (1945–1955) after the end of World War II in Europe. After the defeat of the Nazis, Germany and Austria were occupied as two different areas, both by the same four Allies. Both were later divided into four zones by the 1 August 1945 Potsdam Agreement. Its members were the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, and France. The organisation was based in Schöneberg, Berlin.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LOT Polish Airlines Flight 165 hijacking</span>

LOT Polish Airlines Flight 165 hijacking was the hijacking of a LOT Polish Airlines that occurred on 30 August 1978. The hijackers from East Germany (GDR) were seeking political asylum in West Germany (FRG). The plane landed safely, and the primary hijacker was tried and convicted by a West German jury in the United States Court for Berlin and sentenced to time served, the nine months he had already served during pretrial detention. This was the only case heard before the United States Court for Berlin.

<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 Johnson's 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 their 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law in the Taney Court</span> Aspect of U.S. judicial history (1836–1864)

The Taney Court heard thirty criminal law cases, approximately one per year. Notable cases include Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), United States v. Rogers (1846), Ableman v. Booth (1858), Ex parte Vallandigham (1861), and United States v. Jackalow (1862).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Allied Kommandatura</span>

The Allied Kommandatura, or often just Kommandatura, also known as the Alliierte Kommandantur in German, was the governing body for the city of Berlin following Germany's defeat in World War II. The victorious allied powers established control of post-war Germany and other territories via shared Military Government councils, including for Berlin. The Kommandatura was often known as the little brother to the Allied Control Council, which had the same function for the whole of Germany, and was subordinate to it. It originally comprised representatives from the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union but later included France. The Kommandatura had its home in the Berlin district of Dahlem.

The law of Massachusetts consists of several levels, including constitutional, statutory, regulatory, case law, and local ordinances. The General Laws of Massachusetts form the general statutory law.

References

  1. ↑ "Executive Order 10062". Harry S. Truman Library and Museum. June 6, 1949.
  2. ↑ Pub. L. Tooltip Public Law (United States)  79–724, 60  Stat.   999, enacted August 13, 1946
  3. ↑ "Law No. 46: United States Court for Berlin". Official Gazette of the Allied Kommandatura Berlin (71): 1056–1058. 30 April 1955., as amended by "Ordinance amending United States High Commissioner Law No. 46 concerning the United States Court for Berlin". Official Gazette of the Allied Kommandatura Berlin (98): 1220–1221. 7 November 1978.
  4. ↑ McCauliff 1980, p. 691.
  5. ↑ United States, as the United States Element, Allied Kommandatura, Berlin, v. Hans Detlef Alexander Tiede and Ingrid Ruske, 86F.R.D.227 (United States Court of Berlin1979).
  6. ↑ written up later in 1984 in Judgment in Berlin
  7. ↑ McCauliff 1980, p. 692.
  8. ↑ McCauliff 1980, p. 694.
  9. ↑ Ex parte Milligan , 71 U.S. (4 Wall. ) 2, 120–121 (1866)
  10. ↑ Cover, Robert M. (2007). "Violence and the Word". In Lawrence, Bruce B.; Karim, Aisha (eds.). On Violence: A Reader. Duke University Press. pp. 305–306. ISBN   978-0-8223-3769-0.
  11. ↑ Fullerton 1986, p. 14.
  12. ↑ Fullerton 1986, p. 15.
  13. ↑ later affirmed in Dostal v. Haig, 652F. 2d173 (U.S.App.D.C.April 15, 1981).

Bibliography


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.