Kinsella v. United States ex rel. Singleton (1959)
- Docket
- 22
- Decided
- 1959-01-01
- Category
- General
Summary
Question: Do military courts have jurisdiction over civilian dependents of military personnel? Conclusion: No. Justice Tom C. Clark delivered the opinion for the 7-2 majority. The Court held that civilian dependents of active service members can only be court martialed for capital offenses. The Constitution does not allow for the extension of military power to have jurisdiction over civilians. Therefore, James Dial’s wife had a right to trial in a court protecting her rights as outlined under Article III of the Constitution and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Justice Charles E. Whittaker wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in which he argued that non-military personnel employed by the military overseas may be under military jurisdiction during peace times. However, Joanna Dial was a dependent of an active military member, and she was not employed by the military, so she should not have been court martialed. Justice Potter Stewart joined the opinion. Justice John M. Harlan wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the interpretation of military “status” should not automatically exclude non-military personnel. One’s status as non-military personnel should only be a factor while determining jurisdiction, and the relationship of non-military personnel with the military establishment should also be examined. The Constitution allows the Court to consider these factors in determining appropriate jurisdiction. Justice Felix Frankfurter joined the dissent.