Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay 
Write a Case Brief of the U.S. Supreme Court case, Ex Parte Quirin, following the IRAC format. This Case Brief: Ex Parte Quirin Assignment will help further develop your analytical skills as well as familiarize you with important Supreme Court cases.
Sample Answer
Case Brief: Ex Parte Quirin
Facts
During World War II, eight German saboteurs, including George Dasch and Ernest Burger, landed on the coast of Long Island and Florida with the intention of committing sabotage in the United States. Upon arrival, they buried their uniforms and proceeded to different locations. However, two of the saboteurs, Dasch and Burger, turned themselves in to the FBI and provided information about their mission and the other members involved. The remaining six saboteurs were captured within a week.
The President of the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt, issued a military order designating a military commission to try the saboteurs. The commission was composed of seven U.S. Army officers and was given jurisdiction to try and punish the accused under the law of war.
Procedural History
The military commission found all eight saboteurs guilty of various charges related to espionage and sabotage. They were sentenced to death by a majority vote of the commission. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issue
The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the military commission constituted a lawful tribunal for the trial of the saboteurs.
Rule(s)
The Supreme Court referred to Article III and Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the Articles of War and international law, to determine the applicable rules.
Application/Analysis
The Supreme Court analyzed the authority of the President to establish military commissions and found that it was within his power as Commander-in-Chief during times of war. The Court also examined the historical use of military commissions in similar cases throughout American history and concluded that they were a permissible method of trial for offenses against the law of war.
The Court further considered whether the saboteurs were entitled to be treated as prisoners of war under international law. However, since they were not members of a regular armed force or wearing recognizable uniforms at the time of their capture, they were deemed to be unlawful combatants and therefore not entitled to prisoner of war status.
The Court addressed the argument that the saboteurs should have been tried in civilian courts instead of a military commission. It reasoned that because their acts were committed during wartime and posed a direct threat to national security, it was appropriate for them to be tried by a military commission rather than a civilian court.
Conclusion
I agree with the Court’s holding in this case. During times of war, it is necessary for the government to have the authority to establish military commissions to effectively address threats to national security. The actions of the saboteurs posed a clear danger to the United States, and it was appropriate for them to be tried by a military commission rather than a civilian court.
