Also known as: high-treason · treason
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An offense against the state consisting only of levying war against it or adhering to its enemies by giving them aid and comfort. Conviction requires testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court.
Hassan Hakim is indicted in State A for levying war against the United States. After indictment he flees to State B. The governor of State A demands his return under the extradition clause. State B must deliver Hakim to State A for trial on the high treason charge.
President Hilda Hernandez is accused of levying war against the United States by directing federal forces to attack domestic opponents. The House impeaches her for high treason. The Senate convicts and removes her from office under the constitutional standard.
Hiroshi Hasegawa is charged with high treason in State C after he organized an armed uprising. He flees to State D. State D refuses to honor the extradition demand. The federal courts may intervene to enforce the constitutional extradition obligation.
In 1993 Congress amended the Gun Control Act of 1968 by enacting the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which directed the Attorney General to create a national instant background-check system by November 30, 1998, and imposed interim requirements on firearms dealers and chief law enforcement officers until that system became operational. Under the interim scheme a dealer proposing to transfer a handgun had to obtain a sworn Brady Form from the purchaser, verify the purchaser's identity, forward notice and a copy of the form to the CLEO of the purchaser's residence, and wait five business days before completing the sale unless the CLEO notified the dealer that the transfer would not violate the law. Jay Printz, CLEO for Ravalli County, Montana, and Richard Mack, CLEO for Graham County, Arizona, filed separate federal actions challenging the constitutionality of the interim provisions that required CLEOs to perform background checks and related tasks. In each case the district court held that the obligation imposed on CLEOs was unconstitutional but severable from the remainder of the Act, leaving in place a voluntary background-check system. The Ninth Circuit consolidated the appeals and reversed, holding that none of the Brady Act's interim provisions violated the Constitution. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseHazel Hoffman is prosecuted under a new statute that broadens the definition of high treason after her alleged acts occurred. She argues the law violates the ex post facto clause. The court dismisses the prosecution because the Constitution forbids retroactive expansion of treason liability.
The grandson Normand Morrison executed his will on August 21, 1779. On March 21, 1793, the Court of Probate for Hartford County disapproved the will and refused to record it. More than eighteen months elapsed from this decree, during which the right of appeal was lost under Connecticut law. There was no law in Connecticut allowing a new hearing before the court of probate except through special legislative action. On the second Thursday of May 1795, the Legislature of Connecticut passed a resolution setting aside the March 1793 decree of the Court of Probate. The resolution granted a new hearing before the same court of probate with liberty of appeal in six months. This resolution was passed after the time for appeal from the original decree had expired. A new hearing occurred on July 27, 1795, resulting in the court of probate approving the will and ordering it recorded. An appeal followed in August 1795 to the Superior Court at Hartford, which affirmed the decree in February 1796. The Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut then reviewed the case and in June 1796 confirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. Calder and his wife asserted a claim to the premises as the heiress of Normand Morrison the physician. Bull and his wife asserted their claim under the will of Normand Morrison the grandson. The matter came before the United States Supreme Court for review of the state court proceedings.
View caseHyun Han is charged with high treason for providing aid to foreign enemies. The government introduces recordings of his phone calls obtained without a warrant. The court suppresses the evidence because the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches even in national security prosecutions.
The petitioner was convicted in the District Court for the Southern District of California. He faced an eight-count indictment charging him with transmitting wagering information by telephone from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston in violation of a federal statute. At trial the Government was permitted, over the petitioner's objection, to introduce evidence of the petitioner's end of telephone conversations. FBI agents had attached an electronic listening and recording device to the outside of the public telephone booth from which he had placed his calls. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. It rejected the contention that the recordings had been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment because there was no physical entrance into the area occupied by the petitioner. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the constitutional questions thus presented. Based upon previous visual observations of the petitioner, the agents correctly predicted he would use the booth for several minutes at approximately the same time each morning. The petitioner was subjected to electronic surveillance only during this predetermined period. Six recordings, averaging some three minutes each, were obtained and admitted in evidence. They preserved the petitioner's end of conversations concerning placing bets and receiving wagering information. On the single occasion when the statements of another person were inadvertently intercepted, the agents refrained from listening to them. The telephone booth was made partly of glass. The petitioner was as visible after he entered it as he would have been if he had remained outside. The agents confined their surveillance to the brief periods during which he used the booth and took great care to overhear only the petitioner's conversations.
View caseHelix Biotech obtains classified documents showing government officials committed high treason by aiding an enemy. The company publishes the documents. The government seeks an injunction. The court denies the injunction because prior restraint on publication of truthful information about official misconduct is unconstitutional.
The United States brought suit against the New York Times Company and the Washington Post Company seeking to enjoin publication of material from a classified government study on the history of United States decision-making regarding Vietnam policy. The newspapers had come into possession of the classified documents and had already begun publishing excerpts from the study in their respective newspapers before the government filed for injunctive relief. The District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in the New York Times case that the government had not satisfied the requirements for imposing a prior restraint. In the parallel Washington Post litigation, the District Court for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit both determined that the government had not met its burden. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the matters on an expedited schedule. Stays had been entered by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on June 23, 1971, and by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on June 24, 1971.
View caseHigh treason consists only of levying war against the United States or adhering to its enemies by giving them aid and comfort. No other conduct qualifies. Conviction requires two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court.
Yes. Article II Section 4 provides that the President shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. High treason is expressly listed as an impeachable offense.
Yes. Article IV Section 2 requires a state to deliver up a person charged with treason who flees to another state upon demand of the executive authority of the state from which the person fled. The clause expressly includes treason among the offenses triggering extradition.
Yes. Black's Law Dictionary states that high treason is an alternative term for treason, defined as the offense of attempting to overthrow the government by making war against the state or materially supporting its enemies.
…occurred in the great political trials of the 16th and 17th centuries. One such was the 1603 trial of Sir Walter Raleigh for treason. Lord Cobham, Raleigh's alleged accomplice, had implicated him in an examination before the Privy Council and in a letter. At Raleigh's trial, these were read to the jury. Raleigh argued…