Ex parte Vallandigham
| Ex parte Vallandigham | |
|---|---|
| Argued January 22, 1864 Decided February 15, 1864 | |
| Full case name | Ex parte Clement Vallandigham |
| Citations | 68 U.S. 243 (more) |
| Case history | |
| Prior | This case arose on the petition of Clement L. Vallandigham for a certiorari, to be directed to the Judge Advocate General of the Army of the United States, to send up to the Court, for its review, the proceedings of a military commission, by which Vallandigham had been tried and sentenced to imprisonment. |
| Holding | |
| The Supreme Court of the United States has no power to review by certiorari the proceedings of a military commission ordered by a general officer of the United States Army, commanding a military department. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Wayne, joined by Taney, Catron, Clifford, Swayne, Davis |
| Concurrence | Nelson joined by Grier, Field |
| Miller took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const., Judiciary Act of 1789 | |
Ex parte Vallandigham, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 243 (1864), is a United States Supreme Court case, involving a former congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio, who had violated an Army order against the public expression of sympathy for the Confederate States and their cause. Vallandigham was tried before a military tribunal by Major General Ambrose E. Burnside for treason after he delivered an incendiary speech at Mount Vernon; he then appealed the tribunal's verdict to the Supreme Court, arguing that he as a civilian could not be tried before a military tribunal.
In February 1864, the Supreme Court avoided ruling on the question by instead unanimously holding that they could not take appeals from military tribunals at all.