TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Achtenberg v. United States

Achtenberg v. United States, 409 U.S. 932 (1972)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
October 16, 1972
Docket
No. 71-1656
Judges
Douglas
Citations
409 U.S. 93293 S. Ct. 229

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Dissent — Douglas

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Mr. Justice Douglas,

dissenting.

I would grant certiorari.

Petitioner was convicted of attempting to destroy “war material” and “war premises” in violation of 18 U. S. C. §2153 (a). This section makes it a crime “when the United States is at war, or in times of national emergency as declared by the President or by the Congress” to willfully destroy or attempt to destroy “any war material, war premises, or war utilities . . ..” (Emphasis added.)

A criminal statute which fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden is constitutionally infirm. Predicating criminal liability on conduct engaged in under special circumstances or at certain times is not constitutionally infirm, as long as men of common intelligence are not forced to guess as to a statute’s meaning or differ as to its application. Under the terms of the above statute, the defendant is prohibited from doing specific acts at “times of national emergency as declared by the President.” The declared national emergency under which petitioner was held to have acted is the 1950 *933 declaration of President Truman issued in response to the Korean conflict; the resolution by its terms contemplates termination of the emergency only by act of the President or by concurrent resolution of Congress, neither of which has yet been done.

I doubt that many lawyers, let alone laymen, of ordinary intelligence are aware of the continuing effect of the 1950 national emergency declaration. Under these circumstances, it is questionable whether proper notice of possible criminal liability has been afforded to any individual prosecuted under 18 U. S. C. § 2153 (a). The viability of criminal responsibility predicated upon evaluations of current political temperament or outdated presidential proclamations is an important issue worthy of our consideration on the merits.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1973: 119732026peak 1973 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Eisenberg v. United States410 U.S. 992 (1973)

Most recent

  1. Eisenberg v. United States410 U.S. 992 (1973)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list