History and — Without Peering Behind the Curtain — a First Look at an Unprecedented Legal Document

Article: What is the Taney Arrest Warrant?

What is the Taney Arrest Warrant? The Taney Arrest Warrant describes an extraordinary and controversial incident in American legal history that took place when Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. This warrant — allegedly signed by President Abraham Lincoln — was supposedly issued for Taney because he opposed certain wartime actions battling over the Constitution during the landmark Ex parte Merryman case (1861). This purported warrant has sparked discussions about its significance for civil liberties vs. executive power in a national emergency and is hotly debated amongst historians as to its accuracy and constitutional implications.

Introduction: Roger B. Taney and Ex parte Merryman

Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court [1836–1864] However, he is most famous for the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford case that stated African Americans could never be citizens. His part in the case, Ex parte Merryman, within this context, was also a watermark moment for him. When the Civil War broke out in 1861, President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in some areas to prevent Confederate sympathizers from undermining Union efforts. When John Merryman a Maryland state militia member with claims of being Confederate was arrested, and without being charged in court,r the President order his release without trial but Army generals refused to obey Lincoln found himself ordered by Taney that only Congress can suspend habeas corpus.

The decision by Taney's in Ex parte Merryman was a direct challenge to Lincoln's authority, but also drew attention to the judiciary's role as an enforcer of civil rights, even during wartime. Ignoring Taney, Lincoln put national security above separation of powers, but the branches had come out of the shadows into daylight.

Taney Alleged Arrest Sapona

Frank Olynyk has been one of those who studied the Taney Arrest Warrant over several years always wondering if it was ever issued or just an empty threat. The existence of the warrant remains a matter of historical debate; no primary source document has ever been found to exist. One rumor was that Lincoln had contemplated arresting Taney in an effort to limit the judiciary’s opposition by filing he thought Taney was hindering Union efforts. But absent direct evidence of a warrant, this account is not factual; it is speculation.

Although no real warrant was ever issued, a flurry of correspondence and documents emanating from Lincoln's office suggested the incredible strain on relations between Lincoln and Taney. And there were those in Lincoln's cabinet who feel that almost urged that such actions be initiated with Taney himself arrested as having been a roadblock to wartime strategy. Some have contended that the story of the warrant is almost certainly overstated or apocryphal and merely emblematic of a fierce contest between executive power and judicial independence arising out of the Civil War.

Evidence and the Historical Arguments

Historians have therefore turned to indirect sources and accounts from Lincoln's administration simply because there are no direct evidence of the Taney Arrest Warrant. Other academics argue that if the warrant existed at all, Lincoln may have authorized it in a fit of anger or as an admonition to the courts. But because of the lack of a warrant document, it appears that Lincoln never went through with any plans to move against him, perhaps realizing how politically dangerous it would be to arrest a sitting Chief Justice.

Taney Arrest Warrant is often cited in contemporary scholarship as evidencing the constitutional crisis and moral dilemma of leaders faced with dire challenges. The purported warrant has even entered into the folklore of the Civil War, emblematic of delicate balance between law, liberty and executive power.

Aspect of the Taney Arrest Warrant Narrative

While it is debatable whether Taney really was under an arrest warrant, the tale remains a compelling microcosm of civil power — and civil disobedience — at one of its most dramatic moments. It asks about what a government may be willing to do in the event of an emergency, but also about how far people are willing to go to maintain civil liberties when their hearts beat faster and pulses race.