insular possession

In 1945, twenty-one German nationals who had been in the service of German armed forces or civilian agencies in China were taken into custody by the United States Army following the Japanese surrender. These individuals had continued military activity against the United States after the German High Command executed an unconditional surrender on May 8, 1945, but before the Japanese surrender, principally by collecting and furnishing intelligence concerning American forces to the Japanese armed forces. The prisoners were tried and convicted by a Military Commission constituted by the Commanding General at Nanking pursuant to authority delegated from the Commanding General, United States Forces, China Theatre, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Commission sat in China with the express consent of the Chinese Government, conducted proceedings wholly under American auspices, and imposed sentences that were reviewed and approved with immaterial modification by military reviewing authority. Following conviction the prisoners were repatriated to Germany to serve their sentences at Landsberg Prison, an American Army facility under the Commanding General, Third United States Army, and the Commanding General, European Command. Their immediate custodian was the prison commandant, an American Army officer not named as a respondent. The prisoners filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the District Court of the District of Columbia, naming as respondents the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Army, Chief of Staff of the Army, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The petitions alleged that the trial, conviction, and imprisonment violated Articles I and III of the Constitution, the Fifth Amendment, other constitutional and statutory provisions, and the Geneva Convention. The District Court dismissed the petitions on the authority of Ahrens v. Clark. The Court of Appeals reversed, reinstated the petitions, and remanded for further proceedings. The Supreme Court granted certiorari because of the importance of the holdings to judicial administration and military operations.

Rene Martin Verdugo-Urquidez is a citizen and resident of Mexico. He is believed by the United States Drug Enforcement Agency to be one of the leaders of a large and violent organization in Mexico that smuggles narcotics into the United States. Based on a complaint charging him with narcotics-related offenses, the Government obtained a warrant for his arrest on August 3, 1985. In January 1986, Mexican police officers, after discussions with United States marshals, apprehended Verdugo-Urquidez in Mexico and transported him to the United States Border Patrol station in Calexico, California. There, United States marshals arrested respondent and eventually moved him to a correctional center in San Diego, California, where he remains incarcerated pending trial. Respondent subsequently was convicted in a separate prosecution for the kidnaping and torture-murder of DEA Special Agent Enrique Camarena Salazar. Following respondent's arrest, Terry Bowen, a DEA agent assigned to the Calexico DEA office, decided to arrange for searches of Verdugo-Urquidez's Mexican residences located in Mexicali and San Felipe. Bowen believed the searches would reveal evidence related to respondent's alleged narcotics trafficking activities. Bowen telephoned Walter White, the Assistant Special Agent in charge of the DEA office in Mexico City, and asked him to seek authorization for the search from the Director General of the Mexican Federal Judicial Police. After several attempts to reach high ranking Mexican officials, White eventually contacted the Director General, who authorized the searches and promised the cooperation of Mexican authorities. DEA agents working in concert with officers of the MFJP searched respondent's properties in Mexicali and San Felipe and seized documents. In particular, the search of the Mexicali residence uncovered a tally sheet, which the Government believes reflects the quantities of marijuana smuggled by Verdugo-Urquidez into the United States. The District Court granted respondent's motion to suppress evidence seized during the searches. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Mrs. Clarice Covert, a civilian, killed her husband, a sergeant in the United States Air Force, at an airbase in England where she was residing with him. Mrs. Dorothy Smith, also a civilian, killed her husband, a colonel in the United States Army, at a post in Japan where she was living with him. Both women were tried by courts-martial convened under Article 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for the offense of murder and were sentenced to life imprisonment. The court-martial that tried Mrs. Covert was composed of Air Force officers after charges were preferred by Air Force personnel. The judgment was affirmed by the Air Force Board of Review but reversed by the Court of Military Appeals on grounds related to the defense of insanity, leaving a retrial pending in the District of Columbia. Mrs. Smith was tried by an Army court-martial. Her conviction was approved by the Army Board of Review and the Court of Military Appeals, after which she was confined in a federal penitentiary in West Virginia. While Mrs. Covert was held pending retrial, her counsel petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a writ of habeas corpus. That court ordered her release. The Government appealed directly to the Supreme Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1252. Mrs. Smith's father petitioned the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia for habeas corpus relief on her behalf. That court denied the writ, and while an appeal was pending in the Fourth Circuit the Supreme Court granted certiorari. The two cases were consolidated for argument. An executive agreement between the United States and Great Britain permitted United States military courts to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over offenses committed in Great Britain by American servicemen or their dependents. A similar administrative agreement governed jurisdiction in Japan. Both women were tried pursuant to Article 2(11) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which extends court-martial jurisdiction to persons accompanying the armed forces outside the continental United States subject to treaty or international law provisions.

Five Chinese aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence brought this litigation after each was denied federal employment solely because of alienage. Mow Sun Wong, admitted in 1969 after working as an electrical engineer in China, participated in the California Supplemental Training and Education Program and was assigned to the General Services Administration but could not obtain a janitor position. Siu Hung Mok, admitted in 1968 with eighteen years of business experience in China, likewise participated in the STEP program and was assigned to the Federal Records Center of GSA but could not retain a file clerk position. Kae Cheong Lui performed satisfactory work for the Post Office Department for ten days before termination when his personnel record showed he was not a citizen. Francene Lum, admitted in 1946 with fifteen years of teaching experience and a master's degree in education, was not permitted to take an examination for an evaluator position in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Anna Yu, admitted in 1965, was barred from taking a typing test for a clerk-typist position. Two of the plaintiffs had filed declarations of intent to become citizens while the other three had not. On December 22, 1970, the five plaintiffs commenced a class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California naming the Chairman and Commissioners of the Civil Service Commission and the heads of the three agencies that had denied them employment. The complaint alleged that approximately four million aliens reside in the United States, that about three hundred thousand federal jobs become available each year, and that noncitizens are generally barred from competing for those positions. The District Court rejected a jurisdictional challenge but ruled for the defendants on the merits after defendants moved to dismiss and plaintiffs moved for summary judgment supported by affidavits. Four plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. While the appeal was pending for over two years, the Supreme Court decided Sugarman v. Dougall and In re Griffiths on June 25, 1973. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court judgment. Only the Chairman and Commissioners of the Civil Service Commission petitioned for certiorari. In 1971 Congress established the United States Postal Service and removed its officers and employees from the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. In 1974 the Postal Service amended its regulation to make noncitizens who have permanent resident alien status eligible for most positions. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the Civil Service Commission regulation barring resident aliens from federal competitive civil service employment is constitutional. The regulation at issue, 5 CFR § 338.101, provided that a person may be admitted to competitive examination or given appointment only if a citizen of or owing permanent allegiance to the United States, with limited exceptions for executive assignments when no qualified citizens are available. The Commission construed the permanent allegiance category to cover only natives of American Samoa.