Treason Prosecutions In Us Law
🔍 What is Treason Under U.S. Law?
Treason is defined in the U.S. Constitution (Article III, Section 3) as:
"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
This is a very narrow and specific definition intended to prevent misuse of the charge.
⚖️ Legal Framework
The Constitution sets the definition and requires:
Overt act of levying war or adhering to enemies.
Testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court.
18 U.S.C. § 2381 codifies treason in federal criminal law, punishable by death or imprisonment.
Treason prosecutions are rare because of the high evidentiary standard and constitutional protections.
Detailed Case Law Examples
1. Ex parte Bollman (1807)
Facts:
Two men, Bollman and Swartwout, were accused of conspiring to overthrow the U.S. government (the Burr conspiracy).
Charged with treason for levying war against the U.S.
Legal Issue:
What constitutes “levying war” against the U.S.?
Whether the acts amounted to treason under the Constitution.
Outcome:
The Supreme Court ruled that mere conspiracy without an actual assemblage of armed men was insufficient.
The Court narrowly defined “levying war” as an actual use of force.
Significance:
Established the requirement for an actual insurrection or armed rebellion, not just conspiracy, to prove treason.
Reinforced constitutional protections against overbroad treason charges.
2. Cramer v. United States (1945)
Facts:
Cramer was convicted of treason for aiding Nazi Germany during World War II by gathering intelligence.
Evidence relied on surveillance and witness testimony.
Legal Issue:
Whether the government proved an overt act of adherence and aid to enemies beyond reasonable doubt.
The necessity of two witnesses to the same overt act.
Outcome:
The Supreme Court reversed the conviction.
Held that the government failed to meet the strict constitutional standard.
Significance:
Affirmed the high evidentiary burden for treason.
Highlighted strict constitutional protections, including two-witness rule.
3. United States v. Haupt (1947)
Facts:
Haupt was a German-American who acted as a Nazi saboteur in the U.S. during WWII.
He was convicted of sabotage and treason.
Legal Issue:
Whether Haupt’s actions amounted to levying war or adhering to enemies.
Outcome:
Haupt was convicted of treason and executed.
His activities—sabotage during wartime in aid of enemies—met the constitutional standard.
Significance:
Rare example of treason prosecution ending in execution.
Demonstrated application of treason law during wartime sabotage.
4. United States v. Rosenberg (1951)
Facts:
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage for the Soviet Union.
Charged with passing atomic secrets, not treason, but raised issues related to adherence to enemies.
Legal Issue:
Could espionage for an enemy during wartime be prosecuted as treason?
Outcome:
Convicted of espionage, sentenced to death.
Treason was not charged, but case highlighted espionage vs. treason distinction.
Significance:
Espionage cases more common than treason.
Treason charges avoided due to difficult standards.
5. In re Yamashita (1946)
Facts:
General Tomoyuki Yamashita, Japanese commander in WWII, was charged with war crimes, including acts considered as levying war against U.S. forces.
Legal Issue:
Whether acts during war by a military commander amounted to treason under U.S. law.
Outcome:
Tried and executed for war crimes, not treason.
Treason was not applicable as he was not a U.S. citizen.
Significance:
Clarifies treason applies only to U.S. nationals.
War crimes are prosecuted separately.
6. United States v. Schneiderman (1919)
Facts:
Schneiderman was accused of advising people not to register for the draft during WWI.
Charged with treason for obstructing war efforts.
Legal Issue:
Does speech or advocacy qualify as levying war or adhering to enemies?
Outcome:
Charges dismissed.
Court ruled advocacy alone without overt acts does not constitute treason.
Significance:
Protects First Amendment rights.
Distinguishes treason from sedition and political dissent.
Summary Table
| Case | Year | Jurisdiction | Key Issue | Outcome | Legal Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ex parte Bollman | 1807 | U.S. Supreme Court | Definition of “levying war” | Conviction overturned | Requires actual armed rebellion |
| Cramer v. U.S. | 1945 | U.S. Supreme Court | Proof standards for treason | Conviction overturned | Strict two-witness rule emphasized |
| U.S. v. Haupt | 1947 | Federal | Wartime sabotage as treason | Convicted, executed | Rare treason conviction and execution |
| U.S. v. Rosenberg | 1951 | Federal | Espionage vs. treason distinction | Espionage conviction | Espionage prosecuted more often than treason |
| In re Yamashita | 1946 | Military tribunal | War crimes vs. treason | Executed for war crimes | Treason only for U.S. nationals |
| U.S. v. Schneiderman | 1919 | Federal | Speech as treason | Charges dismissed | Advocacy not treason without overt acts |
Additional Notes
Treason prosecutions are extremely rare in U.S. history due to the constitutional safeguards and high evidentiary burden.
Many acts related to national security (espionage, sabotage, terrorism) are prosecuted under other statutes because proving treason is difficult.
The two-witness rule requires that two witnesses testify to the same overt act of treason.
Treason only applies to U.S. citizens or those owing allegiance to the U.S.
Conclusion
Treason is the gravest offense under U.S. law, but prosecutions are highly guarded and infrequent. The Constitution’s definition and evidentiary safeguards protect against misuse of this charge. The cases highlighted show how courts carefully interpret what constitutes treason and uphold defendants' rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments