Moyer v. Peabody

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1909 United States Supreme Court case

Moyer v. Peabody, 212 U.S. 78 (1909), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the governor and officers of a state National Guard , acting in good faith and under authority of law, may imprison without probable cause a citizen of the United States in a time of insurrection and deny that citizen the right of habeas corpus .

Background

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moyer_v._Peabody&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")
]

The case arose out of a wave of labor disputes, known as the Colorado Labor Wars , in the mining industry in the state of Colorado . In August 1902, the Western Federation of Miners (WFM) organized mill workers in Colorado City , Colorado. The employers planted a spy in the union , and the evidence of union activity gathered by the mole led to the dismissal of 42 union members. Union-employer negotiations over the dismissals began almost immediately, and dragged on into 1903. With the negotiations at a standstill, the WFM struck on February 14, 1903. After the number of miners walking the picket lines grew in March and April, the mine owners decided to seek state aid.

Governor James Peabody was strongly anti-union, and the employers worked with him to craft a response that would break the strike and the union. Although Colorado City was quiet and no public disorders of any magnitude had occurred, the employers and local authorities claimed extensive rioting had occurred and that local and county law enforcement were unable to handle the mobs. Governor Peabody called out the Colorado militia , investing them around Colorado City. Outraged miners in nearby Cripple Creek and the western city of Telluride also walked off the job, and the militia was deployed in those cities as well.

Mass arrests began in September 1903, breaking the strike.

One of those arrested was Charles Moyer .

Moyer had traveled to Telluride to protest the mass arrests and deportation of miners. He lent his signature to a WFM poster (see right) denouncing the arrests. Moyer was arrested on March 28, 1904, for desecrating the American flag . He was released on bail, but re-arrested the following day on the orders of the Adjutant General of the state militia on the grounds of "military necessity."

Moyer's predicament was not unusual. The state militia had detained hundreds of striking workers and union leaders for many weeks in bullpens and had disregarded hundreds of habeas corpus petitions.

Moyer petitioned a Colorado state court for a writ of habeas corpus, which was granted. However, the Colorado State Attorney General and the local district attorney refused to honor the writ. Moyer appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court . On June 6, 1904, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in In re Moyer, that Moyer's constitutional right to due process and habeas corpus had not been violated. The court held that the governor had acted under color of state law and that the courts had no jurisdiction to review the governor's finding that a state of insurrection existed in Colorado.

Moyer appealed to the U.S. District Court in Missouri , and obtained a writ of habeas corpus on July 5, 1904.

Alarmed by the writ, Governor Peabody revoked the finding of insurrection the same day and ordered Moyer released by 3:45 p.m. before the federal writ could be served. Moyer was released but continued to press his case. The U.S. Supreme Court accepted certiorari , and oral argument occurred on January 5 and January 6, 1909.

Decision

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moyer_v._Peabody&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Decision")
]

The poster "Is Colorado in America?" with its American flag, with signature by Charles Moyer (bottom, left), which led to Moyer's arrest in 1904 and the Supreme Court case of Moyer v. Peabody

Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. delivered the opinion for a unanimous court. The decision was seven paragraphs long with the first three paragraphs devoted to determining the jurisdiction of the court.

Holmes began by refusing to question whether a state of insurrection actually existed in Colorado. "It is admitted, as it must be, that the Governor's declaration that a state of insurrection existed is conclusive of that fact," Holmes wrote. "The facts that we are to assume are that a state of insurrection existed and that the Governor, without sufficient reason but in good faith, in the course of putting the insurrection down held the plaintiff until he thought that he safely could release him. Holmes then made what is considered a famous statement about due process : "But it is familiar that what is due process of law depends on circumstances. It varies with the subject-matter and the necessities of the situation."

The existence of the state of insurrection was, therefore, critical. Both the state constitution and the statutes gave the governor the power to call out the militia, put down rebellion, and hold rebels without providing for relief. Holmes incorporated the findings of the Colorado Supreme Court in his opinion andonce more refused to entertain any arguments to the contrary: "In such a situation we must assume that he had a right under the state constitution and laws to call out troops, as was held by the Supreme Court of the State." But Holmes' assumptions were not ironclad. He left open the door for plaintiffs to challenge whether or not a state of insurrection did, in fact, exist. In this case, however, the plaintiff did not do so.

Absent any such challenge by the plaintiff to the factual situation, Holmes concluded that plaintiffs have no recourse under law. Holmes placed his faith utterly in the democratic process and a citizenry's ability to elect leaders of "good faith:"

So long as such arrests are made in good faith and in the honest belief that they are needed in order to head the insurrection off, the Governor is the final judge and cannot be subjected to an action after he is out of office on the ground that he had not reasonable ground for his belief.

The judgment left plaintiffs one straw to cling to. Holmes suggested in dicta that plaintiffs might have grounds if their imprisonment were lengthy: "If we suppose a Governor with a very long term of office," Holmes hypothesized, "it may be that a case could be imagined in which the length of the imprisonment would raise a different question. However, since Moyer's incarceration had lasted only four months, it was implied that the line had not been crossed.

Moody took no part in the case due to an extensive illness.[_citation needed
_]

Aftermath

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moyer_v._Peabody&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Aftermath")
]

Moyer v. Peabody was long moot by the time the case reached the Supreme Court, which accepted the case only because it arose under demurrer , which challenged the legal sufficiency of the government's action. Although the case was accepted on demurrer, the Court refused to acknowledge that Moyer had in fact contested Peabody's finding that a state of insurrection existed in Colorado in 1904.

Effect on

…