United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles

United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11 (1955), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that expanded the rights of citizens to civilian trials, holding that an ex-serviceman cannot be court-martialed for crimes alleged during his military service.

Toth v. Quarles
Argued February 8, 1955
Reargued October 13, 1955
Decided November 7, 1955
Full case nameUnited States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, Secretary of the Air Force
Citations350 U.S. 11 (more)
76 S. Ct. 1; 100 L. Ed. 2d 8
ReargumentReargument
Opinion announcementOpinion announcement
Case history
PriorToth v. Talbott, 114 F. Supp. 468 (D.D.C. 1953); reversed sub. nom. Talbott v. United States ex rel. Toth, 215 F.2d 22 (D.C. Cir. 1954); cert. granted, 348 U.S. 809 (1954).
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Harold H. Burton · Tom C. Clark
Sherman Minton · John M. Harlan II
Case opinions
MajorityBlack, joined by Warren, Frankfurter, Douglas, Clark, Harlan
DissentReed, joined by Burton, Minton
DissentMinton, joined by Burton, Reed

The United States Air Force alleged that the petitioner, Robert W. Toth, committed a murder while he was on active duty in Korea. They argued that while they knew about the murder while Toth was in the armed forces, they didn't know the identity of the man who did it so Toth was honorably discharged. Donald A. Quarles, at the time the Secretary of the Air Force, argued that as the crimes occurred during Toth's military service, the military could constitutionally try him.[1]

The case mostly dealt with the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), a 1950 law passed by the 81st United States Congress and signed by President Harry S. Truman, and whether or not certain provisions of it were constitutional; that is to say, whether or not Congress could deprive ex-service members of their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.[1]

In the majority opinion, decided 6–3, Justice Hugo Black wrote that "[the UCMJ] is not a valid exercise of the power granted Congress in Article I of the Constitution."[2] The decision in Quarles would prove as an important precedent which the Court would rely on two years later in the landmark Reid v. Covert ruling.[3] Whereas Quarles dealt with the case of an ex-servicemember, Covert would deny the government the ability to try any US citizen by military tribunal, even citizens abroad. This important precedent was re-affirmed in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), where the Court ruled that while the US government may detain enemy combatants abroad, those detained must have "the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial authority" for the detention to be constitutional.[4]

Those who dissented gave various reasons. While Justice Sherman Minton agreed that civilians "not under the jurisdiction of the Military Code" have a right to a civilian trial, he argued that the Court had erred because Toth was not a "full-fledged civilian".[5] Justice Stanley F. Reed on the other hand, argued that the solution to the question should have come from Congress amending the UCMJ and not via a Court order.[6]

As regards Toth, civilian authorities would never retry him; a 1989 article in the Military Law Review declares: "Toth literally got away with murder."[7]

See also

References
  1. 350 U.S. 11 (1955) (Syllabus)
  2. 350 U.S. 11 (1955) (Opinion of the Court)
  3. 354 U.S. 1 (1957) "Just last Term, this Court held in United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U. S. 11, that military courts could not constitutionally try a discharged serviceman for an offense which he had allegedly committed while in the armed forces. [...] There are no supportable grounds upon which to distinguish the Toth case from the present cases. Toth, Mrs. Covert, and Mrs. Smith were all civilians. All three were American citizens. All three were tried for murder. All three alleged crimes were committed in a foreign country."
  4. 542 U.S. 507 (2004)
  5. 350 U.S. 11 (1955) (Dissent of J. Minton)
  6. 350 U.S. 11 (1955) (Dissent of J. Reed)
  7. Weiner, Frederick Bernays (1989). American military law in light of the first Mutiny Act's tricentennial. Military Law Review. 126. United States Army.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.