InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Reid, Superintendent, District of Columbia Jail, v. Covert

The Court held that United States citizen civilians outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States cannot be tried by a United States military tribunal, but instead retain the protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution, in this case, trial by jury.

354 U.S. 1 · No. 701 · 1956 term · Warren Court

Decided Jun 10, 1957 · argued May 3, 1956, reargued Feb 27, 1957

Civil rights · Military: active duty

Landmark · Other areas · OtherOverruled precedentStruck down an act of Congress

Majority opinion: Hugo Black

The voteMajorityDissent

6–26 in the majority, 2 in dissent

2 dissents (7–2)

Affirmed. Reid, Superintendent, District of Columbia Jail, lost.

What this ruling means

Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the District Of Columbia U.S. District Court, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).

Reid, Superintendent, District of Columbia Jail, was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), is a 6–2 landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that United States citizen civilians outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States cannot be tried by a United States military tribunal, but instead retain the protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution, in this case, trial by jury. Additionally, a plurality of the Court also reaffirmed the president’s ability to enter into international executive agreements, though it held that such agreements cannot contradict federal law or the Constitution.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1956 term. Filled: the 6 in the majority. Hollow: the 2 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianDouglasBlackWarrenBrennanClarkFrankfurterBurtonHarlan

Majority(6)

Dissent(2)

Did not take part: Charles Whittaker.

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
Reid, Superintendent, District of Columbia Jail,Governmental official, or an official of an agency established under an interstate compact (United States)
Respondent
CovertWife, or ex-wife
Reached the Court by
Rehearing or restored to calendar for reargument
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Universal Code of Military Justice
Kind of law
Federal Statute
Decided by
Judicial review (national level)
Struck down
An act of Congress, as unconstitutional
Precedent
The Court overruled one of its own earlier decisions.
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jun 10, 1957DecidedDecided · Decided 6–2: affirmed. Reid, Superintendent, District of Columbia Jail, lost.
  2. Feb 27, 1957RearguedReargued · The Court heard the case argued a second time.
  3. May 3, 1956ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  4. Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court by rehearing or restored to calendar for reargument.
  5. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the District Of Columbia U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

35 other argued cases since 1946 on military: active duty, newest first.

  1. Dalmazzi v. United States138 S. Ct. 2273Jun 22, 2018 · 138 S. Ct. 2273Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  2. Cox v. United States138 S. Ct. 2273Jun 22, 2018 · 138 S. Ct. 2273Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  3. Dwight J. Loving v. United States517 U.S. 748Jun 3, 1996 · 517 U.S. 748Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  4. James D. Ryder v. United States515 U.S. 177Jun 12, 1995 · 515 U.S. 177Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  5. Eric J. Weiss v. United States510 U.S. 163Jan 19, 1994 · 510 U.S. 163Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  6. Thomas F. Conroy v. Walter Aniskoff, Jr., et al.507 U.S. 511Mar 31, 1993 · 507 U.S. 511Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  7. William 'Sky' King v. St. Vincent's Hospital502 U.S. 215Dec 16, 1991 · 502 U.S. 215Civil rights8–0Unanimous band
  8. Solorio v. United States483 U.S. 435Jun 25, 1987 · 483 U.S. 435Civil rights6–36–3 band
  9. United States et al. v. Larionoff et al.431 U.S. 864Jun 13, 1977 · 431 U.S. 864Civil rights5–45–4 band
  10. McLucas, Secretary of the Air Force, et al. v. Dechamplain421 U.S. 21Apr 15, 1975 · 421 U.S. 21Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  11. Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense, et al. v. Councilman420 U.S. 738Mar 25, 1975 · 420 U.S. 738Civil rights6–36–3 band
  12. Schick v. Reed, Chairman, United States Board of Parole, et al.419 U.S. 256Dec 23, 1974 · 419 U.S. 256Civil rights6–36–3 band
  13. Secretary of the Navy v. Avrech418 U.S. 676Jul 8, 1974 · 418 U.S. 676Civil rights6–36–3 band
  14. Parker, Warden, et al. v. Levy417 U.S. 733Jun 19, 1974 · 417 U.S. 733Civil rights5–36–3 band
  15. Cass v. United States417 U.S. 72May 28, 1974 · 417 U.S. 72Civil rights8–18–1 band
  16. Relford v. Commandant, U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, Ft. Leavenworth401 U.S. 355Feb 24, 1971 · 401 U.S. 355Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  17. O'Callahan v. Parker, Warden395 U.S. 258Jun 2, 1969 · 395 U.S. 258Civil rights5–36–3 band
  18. United States v. Augenblick et al.393 U.S. 348Jan 14, 1969 · 393 U.S. 348Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  19. Snapp v. Neal, State Auditor, et al.382 U.S. 397Jan 18, 1966 · 382 U.S. 397Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  20. California v. Buzard382 U.S. 386Jan 18, 1966 · 382 U.S. 386Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  21. McElroy, Secretary of Defense, et al. v. United States ex rel. Guagliardo361 U.S. 281Jan 18, 1960 · 361 U.S. 281Civil rights5–45–4 band
  22. Grisham v. Hagan, Warden361 U.S. 278Jan 18, 1960 · 361 U.S. 278Civil rights7–27–2 band
  23. Kinsella, Warden, v. United States ex rel. Singleton361 U.S. 234Jan 18, 1960 · 361 U.S. 234Civil rights7–27–2 band
  24. Lee v. Madigan, Warden358 U.S. 228Jan 12, 1959 · 358 U.S. 228Civil rights6–27–2 band
  25. Harmon v. Brucker, Secretary of the Army355 U.S. 579Mar 3, 1958 · 355 U.S. 579Civil rights8–18–1 band
  26. Wilson, Secretary of Defense, et al. v. Girard354 U.S. 524Jul 11, 1957 · 354 U.S. 524Civil rights8–0Unanimous band

  27. Fowler v. Wilkinson, Warden353 U.S. 583Jun 3, 1957 · 353 U.S. 583Civil rights5–45–4 band
  28. Jackson v. Taylor, Acting Warden353 U.S. 569Jun 3, 1957 · 353 U.S. 569Civil rights5–45–4 band
  29. United States v. Brown348 U.S. 110Dec 6, 1954 · 348 U.S. 110Civil rights5–36–3 band
  30. Madsen v. Kinsella, Warden343 U.S. 341Apr 28, 1952 · 343 U.S. 341Civil rights8–18–1 band
  31. Woodward v. United States et al.341 U.S. 112Apr 23, 1951 · 341 U.S. 112Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  32. Robertson, President of the Army Review Board, v. Chambers341 U.S. 37Apr 9, 1951 · 341 U.S. 37Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  33. Hiatt, Warden, v. Brown339 U.S. 103Mar 13, 1950 · 339 U.S. 103Civil rights8–0Unanimous band
  34. Le Maistre v. Leffers et al.333 U.S. 1Feb 2, 1948 · 333 U.S. 1Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  35. United States v. Bayer et al.331 U.S. 532Jun 9, 1947 · 331 U.S. 532Civil rights7–27–2 band
Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.