McElroy v. United States ex rel. Guagliardo

PETITIONER: McElroy
RESPONDENT: United States ex rel. Guagliardo
LOCATION: District Court for the District Court of Columbia

DOCKET NO.: 21
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1958-1962)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

CITATION: 361 US 281 (1960)
ARGUED: Oct 21, 1959 / Oct 22, 1959
DECIDED: Jan 18, 1960

Facts of the case

Question

Media for McElroy v. United States ex rel. Guagliardo

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument, Part 2: McElroy v. United States ex rel. Guagliardo - October 22, 1959 (21) in McElroy v. United States ex rel. Guagliardo
Audio Transcription for Oral Argument, Part 1: Wilson v. Bohlender - October 22, 1959 (37) in McElroy v. United States ex rel. Guagliardo
Audio Transcription for Oral Argument, Part 2: Wilson v. Bohlender - October 22, 1959 (37) in McElroy v. United States ex rel. Guagliardo

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument, Part 1: McElroy v. United States ex rel. Guagliardo - October 21, 1959 (21) in McElroy v. United States ex rel. Guagliardo

Earl Warren:

Number 21 McElroy, Secretary of Defense et al, Petitioners versus United States on the relation of Dominic Guagliardo.

Mr. Davis.

Oscar H. Davis:

Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.

This habeas corpus proceeding, here on writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia Circuit, is the first of four cases now before the Court, involving once again Article 2 (11) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which was before the Court two years ago in the Covert case and which -- in which Congress sought to empower courts-martial with jurisdiction over dependants and employees, accompanying and serving with the armed forces overseas.

Of the four cases before the Court, the first, third and fourth involve employees and the second case, immediately succeeding case, involves a dependant.

Of the four cases, all involved noncapital crimes except the last which is a case of a civilian charged with a capital crime.

Did you say they were civilian employees of the armed forces?

Oscar H. Davis:

Yes sir, a person who is not enlisted or commissioned in the armed forces in that sense.

And that's what we're told former federal -- federal status by the Army?

Oscar H. Davis:

He is an employee of the Department of the Air Force.

Respondent is an --

A contractor on particular job?

Oscar H. Davis:

No sir the respondent --

A fellow who is not in uniform could otherwise leave the Army if he chooses to?

Oscar H. Davis:

Well that is our position.

Respondent --

Hugo L. Black:

Is that everybody who works for the Army in the United States and elsewhere?

Oscar H. Davis:

No sir I will try to -- limit our -- our position to people serving the armed forces overseas.

William J. Brennan, Jr.:

Can't you tell me, Mr. Davis, in the pages of each the briefs here in the Court, what the form (Inaudible) --

Oscar H. Davis:

They were --

William J. Brennan, Jr.:

-- the three with civil service --

Oscar H. Davis:

Yes they were all civil service employees of the particular armed service involved.

They were non-employees of contractors or anybody else.

That is they were directly employed by the Federal Government and each of the three employee cases --

William J. Brennan, Jr.:

In other words there are different ways --?

Oscar H. Davis:

They were all civil service employees --

William J. Brennan, Jr.:

Civil service?

Oscar H. Davis:

Well I say civil service generally.

The respondent here was once called a wage board employee as so many are in the United States.

He was paid on an hourly basis, but he was in the -- he was in the same situation as comparable employees in the United States would be at Air Force installations or Air Force posts here in this country.