Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

United States v. Morillo

1863 • 68 U.S. 706 • Taney Court
In United States v. Morillo, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a person who is not an American citizen cannot be convicted of treason against the United States. The case involved Pedro Morillo, a Spanish national living in Florida during the Civil War. He was accused of aiding and abetting Confederate forces by providing them with supplies and information about Union troops' movements. At trial, he argued that since he was not an American citizen, he could not commit treason...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Taney Court
Term: 1863
68 U.S. 706
17 L. Ed. 626
1863 U.S. LEXIS 501
Argued: Feb 10, 1864

United States v. Morillo

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In United States v. Morillo, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a person who is not an American citizen cannot be convicted of treason against the United States. The case involved Pedro Morillo, a Spanish national living in Florida during the Civil War. He was accused of aiding and abetting Confederate forces by providing them with supplies and information about Union troops' movements. At trial, he argued that since he was not an American citizen, he could not commit treason against the United States as defined by Article III Section 3 of the Constitution which states “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them or adhering to their enemies giving them aid and comfort” Since citizenship is required for one to levy war or adhere to enemies under this definition, it follows that non-citizens are unable to commit such acts according to U.S law. The court agreed with his argument and overturned his conviction on appeal ruling that non-citizens cannot be charged with treason because they lack standing under Article III Section 3's definition of what constitutes treasonous behavior

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In United States v. Morillo, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a person born in Puerto Rico while it was under Spanish rule could be considered an American citizen and thus subject to military conscription. The majority opinion held that such persons were not citizens of the United States and therefore could not be conscripted into service. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Field argued that Congress had intended for all inhabitants of territories acquired by the U.S., including those born before acquisition, to become citizens upon annexation or cession of said territory; as such he believed they should have been allowed to serve in the military if called upon to do so. He further noted that this interpretation would help ensure loyalty among these new citizens towards their adopted country since they would now have a vested interest in its success and defense against foreign powers due to their own involvement in defending it from attack or invasion through military service when needed.

Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms