Ex parte Milligan

Ex parte Milligan (1866)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Lambdin Milligan, a civilian in Indiana, was arrested during the Civil War and tried by a military tribunal for alleged disloyal activities. The Supreme Court held that trying civilians in military courts is unconstitutional when civilian courts are open and functioning.

3) Why It Mattered
This case set a powerful precedent protecting civil liberties during wartime. It declared that the Constitution applies “equally in war and in peace.”

Wartime Powers Cases

Korematsu v. United States

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Fred Korematsu, a U.S. citizen of Japanese descent, was convicted for violating a military exclusion order that required Japanese Americans to relocate to internment camps during World War II. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction, ruling that the exclusion was justified by wartime military necessity.

3) Why It Mattered
Korematsu is one of the most infamous Supreme Court rulings. It legitimized mass internment of Japanese Americans and stood for decades as precedent for extreme deference to the government in wartime.

Acts

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) (1978)

1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (50 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.)

2) Why It Was Done
FISA was enacted after revelations of widespread domestic spying (e.g., the Church Committee) to regulate government surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes and establish judicial oversight.

3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
Prior intelligence gathering relied on executive claims of inherent authority. FISA created a statutory framework with judicial checks, aiming to protect Fourth Amendment rights while enabling national security investigations.

Acts

Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA)

Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA, 2000)

1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (18 U.S.C. § 983)

2) Why It Was Done
Civil asset forfeiture allowed law enforcement to seize property suspected of being connected to crime, often without charging the owner. CAFRA was passed to strengthen due process protections for property owners while preserving forfeiture as a law enforcement tool.

3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
Forfeiture practices pre-date CAFRA and were widely criticized for violating Fifth Amendment due process and Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable seizures. CAFRA added procedural safeguards.

Acts

USA PATRIOT Act

USA PATRIOT Act (2001)

1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute on Congress.gov

2) Why It Was Done
Passed quickly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the PATRIOT Act expanded law enforcement and intelligence agencies’ powers to investigate and prevent terrorism.

3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
Amended or expanded numerous existing laws, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA, 1978) and federal criminal procedure statutes. Raised concerns about conflicts with Fourth Amendment privacy rights.