Duncan v. Kahanamoku
|Duncan v. Kahanamoku|
|Argued December 7, 1945
Decided February 25, 1946
|Full case name||Duncan v. Duke Kahanamoku|
|Citations||327 U.S. 304 (more)
66 S. Ct. 606; 90 L. Ed. 688
|The trial by military tribunal, that convicted Duncan, was unconstitutional.|
|Majority||Black, joined by Reed, Douglas, Rutledge|
|Dissent||Burton, joined by Frankfurter|
|Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.|
Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304 (1946), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court. It is often associated with the Japanese exclusion cases (Hirabayashi v. United States, Korematsu v. United States and Ex parte Endo) because it involved wartime curtailment of fundamental civil liberties under the aegis of military authority.
While Duke Kahanamoku was a military police officer during World War II, he arrested Duncan for public intoxication. At the time, Hawaii, not yet a state, was being administered under martial law instituted in the islands after the December 7, 1941 Pearl Harbor attack. Duncan was therefore tried by a military tribunal and appealed to the Supreme Court. The court ruled that trial by military tribunal was, in this case, unconstitutional.
- Anthony, J. Garner (1947). "Hawaiian Martial Law in the Supreme Court". Yale Law Journal (The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 57, No. 1) 57 (1): 27–54. doi:10.2307/793363. JSTOR 793363.
|Wikisource has original text related to this article:|
|This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.|