This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2007)

Ex parte Bollman
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided February 20, 1807
Full case name	Ex parte Erick Bollman and Ex parte Samuel Swartwout
Citations	8 U.S. 75 (more) 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75; 2 L. Ed. 554; 1807 U.S. LEXIS 369
Prior history	United States v. Bollman, 24 F. Cas. 1189 (C.C.D.C. 1807) (No. 14,622)
Subsequent history	None
Holding
The Supreme Court had the power to order that a writ of habeas corpus be issued to release the petitioners from prison, because the Constitution grants that power to federal courts unless Congress suspends it. The petitioners' alleged conspiracy did not rise to the level of treason as defined by the Constitution.
Court membership
Chief Justice John Marshall Associate Justices William Cushing · Samuel Chase Bushrod Washington · William Johnson Henry B. Livingston
Case opinions
Majority	Marshall, joined by Cushing, Chase, Washington, Livingston
Dissent	Johnson
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. I, III, amends. IV, VI; Judiciary Act of 1789

Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. (Cranch 4) 75 (1807), was a case brought before the United States Supreme Court. Three main points were established in this early and formative civil liberties case:

• The Supreme Court has the power to issue writs (orders to enforce a judicial law or principle, e.g. habeas corpus) to circuit courts.
  • This "gives teeth" to writs like that of habeas corpus, because it provides a way to invoke a higher court's mediation.
• The Constitutional definition of treason is limited to actual, direct, and concrete involvement in an attempt to forcefully overthrow the government.
  • That is, treason is essentially a "military" offense. For instance, no amount of anti-government speech can qualify as treason, although giving away military secrets might.
• Only Congress may suspend the writ of habeas corpus.
  • This was not so much an argued point, nor something presented as a new interpretation, as it was a matter-of-fact observation made by Chief Justice John Marshall. This principle would be much more hotly debated in the later Supreme Court Cases of the American Civil War, which centered around wartime civil liberties and the ability of the various branches of government to control them.

Erick Bollman and Samuel Swartwout were civilians who became implicated in the Burr-Wilkinson Plot. This plot supposedly consisted of Aaron Burr and James Wilkinson attempting to create an empire in the United States, ruled by Burr. In 1806, Wilkinson informed Thomas Jefferson of the plot, ending whatever may have actually been planned. Bollman and Swartwout attempted to recruit others into the plot, but these individuals informed the military, which promptly arrested them.

See also [link]

• Cramer v. United States: a later treason case before the high court.
• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 8

References [link]

• Eric M. Freedman, Milestones in Habeas Corpus: Part I: Just Because John Marshall Said It, Doesn't Make It So: Ex Parte Bollman and the Illusory Prohibition on the Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus for State Prisoners in the Judiciary Act of 1789, 51 Ala. L. Rev. 531 (2000).
• Jean Edward Smith, John Marshall: Definer Of A Nation. New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1996.
• The Swartwout Chronicles

External links [link]

• Full Text of the Decision