Opinion · District Court, District of Columbia

Ex Parte Quirin

47 F. Supp. 431

Type
Opinion
Court
District Court, District of Columbia
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1942-07-28
Topic
general

MORRIS, District Judge. The petitioner, Richard Quirin, asks leave to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by his counsel.. It is conceded by petitioner’s counsel that petitioner landed on the coast of the United States in June, 1942, from a German submarine, with explosives, which he was instructed by a German officer to use for the purpose of committing sabotage on certain American industries. In view of this statement of fact, it seems clear that the petitioner comes within that category of subjects, citizens or residents of a nation at war with the United States, who, by a proclamation of the President, dated July 2, 1942, are not privileged to seek any remedy or maintain any proceeding in the courts of the United States. I do not consider that Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 18 L.Ed. 281, is controlling in the circumstances of this petitioner.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Ex Parte Quirin. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
2 opinions
EX PARTE QUIRIN, (D.D.C. 1942)
47 F. Supp. 431
Ex parte QUIRIN (and six other cases).
United States District Court, D. Columbia.
July 28, 1942.
Proceeding by the United States of America on the relation of Richard Quirin, Herbert Hans Haupt, Edward John Kerling, Ernest Peter Burger, Heinrich Harm Heinck, Werner Thiel and Herman Otto Neubauer for leave to file a petition for habeas corpus.

Applications denied.

Orders affirmed,63 S.Ct. 1,87L.Ed. ___,63 S.Ct. 2,87L.Ed. ___.
Colonel Kenneth C. Royall, of Raleigh, N.C., for petitioners.

Francis B. Biddle, Atty. Gen., for respondent.
MORRIS, District Judge
The petitioner, Richard Quirin, asks leave to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by his counsel. It is conceded by petitioner's counsel that petitioner landed on the coast of the United States in June, 1942, from a German submarine, with explosives, which he was instructed by a German officer to use for the purpose of committing sabotage on certain American industries. In view of this statement of fact, it seems clear that the petitioner comes within that category of subjects, citizens or residents of a nation at war with the United States, who, by a proclamation of the President, dated July 2, 1942, are not privileged to seek any remedy or maintain any proceeding in the courts of the United States.

I do not consider that Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2,18 L.Ed. 281, is controlling in the circumstances of this petitioner. The application of the petitioner must, therefore, be denied.West Page 246