Case Brief Rubric: Levels Of Achievement And Content

Case Brief Rubriccriterialevels Of Achievementcontent70advanced92 1

Write 3 Case Briefs of specified U.S. Supreme Court cases following the IRAC format. The Case Brief will be 500–1,000 words. The case briefs should be based solely on the case as reported by the U.S. Supreme Court, using the citation provided. Include a brief summary of the facts as found by the court, relevant procedural history, the legal issue(s), the applicable legal rule(s), the court’s application/analysis, and the final conclusion with your personal assessment. Follow the IRAC methodology: facts, procedural history, issue, rule, application/analysis, and conclusion. No outside sources are required or permitted. The first case to brief is Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. ________; the second is United States v. Alvarez–Machain, 504 U.S. ________; and the third is Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. ________. Submit each brief by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on the Sunday of the assigned week.

Paper For Above instruction

Case Brief: Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942)

Facts

The case of Ex Parte Quirin involved eight German enemy combatants who were captured in the United States during World War II. These individuals were charged with violating the laws of war by secretly entering the U.S. to sabotage military targets. The government argued that they were unlawful combatants, and their apprehension and trial by military commission were justified under wartime emergency authority. The actions taken against them stemmed from wartime powers exercised by the President during a time of war, and the individuals challenged their detention and trial procedures, claiming they were entitled to a writ of habeas corpus.

Procedural History

The military commission convicted the defendants of conspiracy and sabotage. The case was brought before the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of the military tribunals and the validity of their detention. The Court before which the case was brought upheld the trials conducted by the military commission and denied the writ of habeas corpus, asserting the need for expedited procedures during wartime.

Issue

Whether the President has the constitutional authority to authorize military commissions to try and detain enemy combatants captured within the United States during wartime, and whether such tribunals violate the rights to habeas corpus.

Rule

The Supreme Court held that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, has the constitutional authority to establish military tribunals to try enemy combatants during wartime, and that these tribunals are consistent with constitutional protections when properly composed and conducted.

Application/Analysis

The Court analyzed the constitutional powers granted to the President and Congress during wartime, emphasizing the need for a flexible approach to national security concerns. It found that the military tribunals used to try the German agents adhered to procedural safeguards and did not violate the due process clause. The Court distinguished between lawful enemy belligerents and unlawful combatants, asserting the government’s right to detain and try those unlawful competitors without the protections afforded to civilians.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the authority of the military tribunals, ruling that the detention and trial of the German agents did not violate the Constitution. In my opinion, the decision balanced national security needs with constitutional rights, but it also raised concerns about potential overreach during wartime.

References

• Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942).
• Scholarly analysis of wartime executive power and habeas corpus. (Publication details)
• Legal commentary on military tribunals and constitutional rights during war.
• Historical context of Supreme Court rulings during WWII.
• Additional case law analyzing military detention.