Ex parte Bollman
 | This article needs additional citations for verification. (December 2007) |
| Ex parte Bollman | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Decided February 20, 1807 | |
| Full case name | Ex parte Erick Bollman and Ex parte Samuel Swartwout |
| Citations | 8 U.S. 75 (more) |
| Case history | |
| Prior | United States v. Bollman, 24 F. Cas. 1189 (C.C.D.C. 1807) (No. 14,622) |
| Subsequent | None |
| Holding | |
| The petitioners' alleged conspiracy did not rise to the level of treason as defined by the Constitution. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Marshall, joined by Cushing, Chase, Washington, Livingston |
| Dissent | Johnson |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. art. I, III, amends. IV, VI; Judiciary Act of 1789 | |
Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75 (1807), was a case brought before the United States Supreme Court. Bollman held that the constitutional definition of treason excluded mere conspiracy to levy war against the United States.
Erick Bollman and Samuel Swartwout were civilians who became implicated in the Burr-Wilkinson Plot. This plot supposedly consisted of Aaron Burr and James Wilkinson attempting to create an empire in the United States, ruled by Burr. In 1806, Wilkinson informed Thomas Jefferson of the plot, ending whatever may have actually been planned. Bollman and Swartwout attempted to recruit others into the plot, but these individuals informed the military, which promptly arrested them.
See also
- Cramer v. United States: a later treason case before the high court.
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 8
References
- Eric M. Freedman, Milestones in Habeas Corpus: Part I: Just Because John Marshall Said It, Doesn't Make It So: Ex Parte Bollman and the Illusory Prohibition on the Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus for State Prisoners in the Judiciary Act of 1789, 51 Ala. L. Rev. 531 (2000).
- Jean Edward Smith, John Marshall: Definer Of A Nation. New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1996.