This Article has two main objectives. First, I will analyze the Court's decision in Cramer v. United States. Based on internal court documents, such as draft opinions and private memoranda, it is clear that the Justices had more on their minds than the specific legal question at hand. Second, I will reassess the relationship between Cramer and the lack of treason charges after 1954 and offer an explanation for the disappearance of treason prosecutions until the indictment of Gadahn in 2006. Specifically, I will highlight the significance of a traditionally underappreciated portion of the Cramer decision: the Court's statement that Congress enjoys great latitude in proscribing treasonous conduct under different headings. These passages not only help explain the lack of treason prosecutions after 1954, but they also shed light on an issue that has resurfaced from time to time without much fanfare. By examining the link between Cramer and the lack of treason prosecutions after 1954, one can better understand the state of treason as it exists today.
Paul T. Crane, Did the Court Kill the Treason Charge?: Reassessing Cramer v. United States and Its Significance, 36 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 635 (2009).