References in periodicals archive ?
Despite the Supreme Court's strongly worded denunciation of military commissions, the scope of the Court's ruling in Ex parte Milligan was surprisingly limited.
These restrictions are discussed and illustrated in Ex parte Milligan and Duncan v.
Taney remained vocal in his opposition to Lincoln's exercise of emergency power, and he extracted a measure of revenge (the case was decided after Lincoln's assassination) in Ex Parte Milligan.
McGinty takes up this issue with his analysis of Ex parte Milligan (44) in which the full Court finally considered the detention and trial of a U.
Hanft, (21) and by references to attempts to define the scope of the Government's authority to detain and try enemy combatants in Ex parte Quirin (22) and Ex parte Milligan.
Hanft, (50) Ex parte Quirin, (51) and Ex parte Milligan.
Stoking that fury was the Ex parte Milligan Supreme Court decision of 1866.
With Ex parte Milligan in view, the acts also disallowed the Supreme Court from hearing appeals by citizens invoking their rights to habeas corpus.
Although there are some cases prior to the Civil War that dealt with the detention of individuals based on the claim that their freedom posed a danger to the national security, this article presumes that the seminal case Ex Parte Milligan either incorporates or overrules the prior practice.
Quoting the 1866 case of Ex Parte Milligan, the majority ruled that "the president [cannot] institute tribunals for the trial and punishment of offenses, either of soldiers or civilians, unless in cases of a controlling necessity, which justifies what it compels, or at least insures acts of indemnity from the justice of the legislature.
The Supreme Court struck down that claim in the 1866 case Ex Parte Milligan, ruling that "martial rule can never exist where the Courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction.
The Court would come to a radically different view in 1866, however, when the Court decided Ex parte Milligan.