Charles Moyer v. James Peabody
| Citation | 29 S.Ct. 235,212 U.S. 78,53 L.Ed. 410 |
| Decision Date | 18 January 1909 |
| Docket Number | No. 55,55 |
| Parties | CHARLES H. MOYER, Plff. in Err., v. JAMES H. PEABODY, Sherman M. Bell, and Bulkeley Wells |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Messrs. Edmund F. Richardson and Horace N. Hawkins for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 79-80 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Horace Phelps, William H. Dickson, and John M. Waldron for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 80-81 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:
This is an action brought by the plaintiff in error against the former governor of the state of Colorado, the former adjutant general of the national guard of the same state, and a captain of a company of the national guard, for an imprisonment of the plaintiff by them while in office. The complaint was dismissed on demurrer, and the case comes here on a certificate that the demurrer was sustained solely on the ground that there was no jurisdiction in the circuit court. 148 Fed. 870.
The complaint alleges that the imprisonment was continued from the morning of March 30, 1904, to the afternoon of June 15, and that the defendants justified under the Constitution of Colorado, making the governor commander in chief of the state forces, and giving him power to call them out to execute laws, suppress insurrection, and repel invasion. It alleges that his imprisonment was without probable cause, that no complaint was filed against the plaintiff, and that (in that sense) he was prevented from having access to the courts of the state, although they were open during the whole time; but it sets out proceedings on habeas corpus, instituted by him before the supreme court of the state, in which that court refused to admit him to bail and ultimately discharged the writ. 35 Colo. 154, 91 Pac. 738, and 35 Colo. 159, 12 L.R.A.(N.S.) 979, 117 Am. St. Rep. 189, 85 Pac. 190. In those proceedings it appeared that the governor had declared a county to be in a state of insurrection, had called out troops to put down the trouble, and had ordered that the plaintiff should be arrested as a leader of the outbreak, and should be detained until he could be discharged with safety, and that then he should be delivered to the civil authorities, to be dealt with according to law.
The jurisdiction of the circuit court, if it exists, is under Rev. Stat. § 629, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 506, Sixteenth. That clause gives original jurisdiction 'of all suits authorized by law to be brought by any person to redress the deprivation, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any state, of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States, or of any right secured by any law providing for equal rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States.' The complaint purports to be founded upon the Constitution and on Rev. Stat. § 1979, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1262, which authorizes suit to be brought for such deprivation as above described. Therefore the question whether the complaint states a case upon the merits under § 1979 in this instance is another aspect of the question whether it states a case within the jurisdiction of the court under § 629, cl. 16. Taken either way, the question is whether this is a suit authorized by law,—that is, by § 1979, or the Constitution, or both.
The plaintiff's position, stated in a few words, is that the action of the governor, sanctioned to the extent that it was by the decision of the supreme court, was the action of the state and therefore within the 14th Amendment; but that, if that action was unconstitutional, the governor got no protection from personal liability for his unconstitutional interference with the plaintiff's rights. It is admitted, as it must be, that the governor's declaration that a state of insurrection existed is conclusive of that fact. It seems to be admitted also that the arrest alone would not necessarily have given a right to bring this suit. Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1, 45, 46, 12 L. ed. 581, 600, 601. But it is said that a detention for so many days, alleged to be without probable cause, at a time when the courts were open, without an attempt to bring the plaintiff before them, makes a case on which he has a right to have a jury pass.
We shall not consider all of the questions that the facts suggest, but shall confine ourselves to stating what we regard as a sufficient answer to the complaint, without implying that there are not others equally good. Of course, the plaintiff's position is that he has been deprived of his liberty without due process of law. 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. Thus, summary proceedings suffice for taxes, and executive decisions for exclusion from the country. Den ex dem. Murray v. Hoboken Land & Improv. Co. 18 How. 272, 15 L. ed. 372; United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U. S. 253, 263, 49 L. ed. 1040, 1044, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 644. What, then, are the circumstances of this case? By agreement the record of the proceedings upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clemmer v. Hartford Ins. Co.
...each case depends upon the circumstances varying with the subject matter and the necessities of the situation. (Moyer v. Peabody, 212 U.S. 78, 84, 29 S.Ct. 235, 53 L.Ed. 410 .) Accordingly, the same circumstances may in one setting constitute a deprivation of due process while in another se......
-
Boim v. Quranic Literacy Institute
...depends on the circumstances." Society of Lloyd's v. Ashenden, 233 F.3d 473, 479 (7th Cir.2000). See also Moyer v. Peabody, 212 U.S. 78, 84-85, 29 S.Ct. 235, 53 L.Ed. 410 (1909)("what is due process of law depends on circumstances. It varies with the subject-matter and the necessities of th......
-
Monroe v. Pape
...2, 191 U.S. 376, 24 S.Ct. 93, 48 L.Ed. 228. 20. Holt v. Indiana Mfg. Co., 176 U.S. 68, 20 S.Ct. 272, 44 L.Ed. 374; Moyer v. Peabody, 212 U.S. 78, 29 S.Ct. 235, 53 L.Ed. 410; Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, 59 S.Ct. 954, 83 L.Ed. 1423; cf. Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 64 S.Ct. 757, 88 L.......
-
Thompson v. Burke
...v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 247-248, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1692, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974), citing Mr. Justice Holmes in Moyer v. Peabody, 212 U.S. 78, 85, 29 S.Ct. 235, 53 L.Ed. 410 (1909). No doubt can be entertained that probation officers and Pennsylvania Parole Board members are entitled to quasi-jud......
-
Qualified and Absolute Immunity at Common Law.
...a governor's imprisonment of an individual when the governor "had declared a county to be in a state of insurrection." Moyer v. Peabody, 212 U.S. 78, 82 (1909). In dicta, Moyer said that "[s]o long as such arrests are made in good faith and in the honest belief that they are needed in order......
-
On the Precipice: Democracy, Disaster, and the State Emergency Powers That Govern Elections in Crises
...to justify the action of the Governor in attempting to limit complainants’ oil production, otherwise lawful.” 105 95. Moyer v. Peabody, 212 U.S. 78 (1909); Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378 (1932). 96. Moyer, 212 U.S. at 82. 97. Id. 98. Id. 85. 99. Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378 (1......
-
Guantanamo and the conflict of laws: Rasul and beyond.
...parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866); Ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861) (No. 9,487). (207) See Moyer v. Peabody, 212 U.S. 78, 85 (1909) ("Public danger warrants the substitution of executive process for judicial process. This was admitted with regard to killing men i......
-
U.S. military courts and the war in Iraq.
...124 S. Ct. 2633, 2647 (2004) (plurality opinion). (477.) Greenholtz v. Neb. Penal Inmates, 442 U.S. 1, 12 (1979). (478.) Moyer v. Peabody, 212 U.S. 78, 84 (1909) (Holmes, (479.) Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 124 S. Ct. 2633, 2664 (2004) (Scalia, J., dissenting). (480.) Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S......