Scribd
Upload
92 views2 pages

Ex Parte Milligan

1. Lamdin P. Milligan, an Indiana citizen, was arrested in 1864 by the military and tried before a military commission on charges including conspiracy and aiding rebels. He contested the military trial, arguing the commission lacked jurisdiction over a civilian. 2. The Supreme Court ruled the military commission did not have jurisdiction to try Milligan, a civilian in a state where courts were functioning. Martial law cannot exist where courts are open, and Milligan had a right to a trial by jury under the Constitution. 3. The Court ordered Milligan's discharge, finding he should have been tried in civilian courts, not by military commission, even during a time of suspension of habeas corpus.

Uploaded by

catrina lobaton
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
92 views2 pages

Ex Parte Milligan

1. Lamdin P. Milligan, an Indiana citizen, was arrested in 1864 by the military and tried before a military commission on charges including conspiracy and aiding rebels. He contested the military trial, arguing the commission lacked jurisdiction over a civilian. 2. The Supreme Court ruled the military commission did not have jurisdiction to try Milligan, a civilian in a state where courts were functioning. Martial law cannot exist where courts are open, and Milligan had a right to a trial by jury under the Constitution. 3. The Court ordered Milligan's discharge, finding he should have been tried in civilian courts, not by military commission, even during a time of suspension of habeas corpus.

Uploaded by

catrina lobaton
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

1. Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S.

2 (1866)

Lamdin P. Milligan, a citizen of the United States, and a resident and citizen of the State of
Indiana, was arrested on the 5th day of October, 1864, confined in a military prison. On the 21st
day of the same month, he was placed on trial before a 'military commission, acting under the
authority of President Abraham Lincoln,' upon the following charges;

1. 'Conspiracy against the Government of the United States;'

2. 'Affording aid and comfort to rebels against the authority of the United States;'

3. 'Inciting insurrection;'

4. 'Disloyal practices;' and

5. 'Violation of the laws of war.'

An objection by him to the authority of the commission to try him being overruled, Milligan was
found guilty on all the charges, and sentenced to suffer death by hanging; and this sentence,
having been approved, he was ordered to be executed on Friday, the 19th of May, 1865.

Milligan filed his petition in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of
Indiana, Milligan’s lawyers sought a writ of habeas corpus, contesting the constitutionality of the
military trial. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court.

Issue:

1. Should a writ of habeas corpus be issued based on Milligan's petition and should Milligan be
discharged from custody?

2. Did the military commission have jurisdiction to try and sentence Milligan?

Ruling:

1.YES. the writ of habeas corpus could be issued based on the congressional act of March 3,
1863; the military commission did not have the jurisdiction to try and sentence Milligan; and he
was entitled to a discharge. 

2. No. Milligan, who was a civilian not in military service and resident of a state in which civilian
courts were still functioning, had a right, when charged with a crime, to be tried and punished
according to the law. Under the U.S. Constitution this included security against unreasonable
search and seizure, a warrant for probable cause before arrest, and if indicted, a speedy trial by
jury. Justice Davis disagreed with the federal government's argument regarding the propriety of
the military commission, stating 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
became a necessity to provide a substitute for a civil authority that had been overthrown. This
was not the situation in Indiana, where the civilian courts were still operating at the time of
Milligan's arrest, trial, and incarceration. The majority opinion further observed that during the
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, citizens may be only detained without charges, not
"tried" or executed under the jurisdictions of military tribunals. The writ is not the right itself, but
merely the ability to issue orders demanding the right's "enforcement."

You might also like