| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Ex Parte John L. Tillinghast, Esquire was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1830. The petitioner, Mr. Tillinghast, had been convicted of contempt for refusing to answer questions posed by the district court during an investigation into alleged fraud and misconduct involving public funds in Rhode Island. He argued that his conviction violated his rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution which protects citizens from self-incrimination and double jeopardy (being tried twice for same offense). The Supreme Court agreed with Mr. Tillinghast's argument and reversed his conviction on both counts; they held that he could not be compelled to testify against himself nor could he be punished twice for one offense as it would violate due process of law guaranteed by Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution. This decision established important precedent regarding constitutional protections afforded to individuals accused or charged with criminal offenses in America today
In Ex Parte John L. Tillinghast, Esquire, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a writ of habeas corpus should be issued in order for an individual to challenge his detention by military authorities. The majority opinion held that such a writ could not issue because it would interfere with the President's power as Commander-in-Chief and undermine Congress' authority over military affairs. Justice Story dissented from this decision on two grounds: first, he argued that there were no constitutional provisions which prohibited issuing a writ of habeas corpus; second, he maintained that even if there were such prohibitions they did not apply in this case since the petitioner had been detained without any congressional authorization or direction whatsoever. He concluded by asserting that "the great principles of personal liberty" must be protected against arbitrary executive action and urged his colleagues to reconsider their ruling so as to ensure justice is served in all cases involving individuals who are unlawfully detained by government officials.