Political
chars729
SupremeCourtAuthorityNewFor2022.pptx
Supreme Court Authority to Review State Court Judgments
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816)
The Facts:
Lord Fairfax’s lands seized by Virginia after the Revolution
Virginia parcels out the land to own citizens
John Marshall benefits from this; recuses himself
Peace Treaty of 1783 and Jay Treaty protect the property of loyalists
Martin claims land from Fairfax; Hunter claims land based on Virginia Law
Previous History
Litigation had begun in 1791
In Fairfax’s Devisee v. Hunter’s Lessee (1813) the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Fairfax
The Virginia Court of Appeals refused to obey the Supreme Court mandate
Case returns to the Supreme Court
The Argument from Martin
§ 25 of the Judiciary Act gives the Supreme Court the power to review state court decisions
Recall debates at the Convention on the need for lower federal courts
Even states’ rights advocates expected the Supreme Court to review state court judgments
The Argument from Virginia
Constitution does not allow federal courts to operate directly on state courts
If collisions arise, so be it
Federal interests should have been vindicated through the removal power of the federal district courts
Removal power info: https://wellsmarble.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/removal-jurisdiction-a-primer-and-refresher.pdf
Once the case was left in the hands of the state court, the case will be finalized in the state
Justice Story
Congress has discretion in allocating appellate jurisdiction to federal courts
“It is the case not the court that gives the jurisdiction”
The Constitution operates on the states as well as the federal government
See, e.g., Article I, § 10
The Necessity of Federal Review
Why is federal court review necessary under the Constitution?
States are inadequate guarantors of federal law:
State judges are learned and competent but may be swayed by state prejudices and rivalries
An overwhelming need for uniformity in US in all matters of federal law
Cohens v. Virginia (1821)
Supreme Court Review of State Criminal Cases
The Facts
Cohen brothers sell DC lottery tickets in Virginia in violation of Virginia law
Brothers argue that their actions are protected by the supremacy clause
Virginia maintains Supreme Court cannot review convictions
Repeat arguments from Martin
New argument: State is a named party
Plus: criminal case between the state and its own citizens
Marshall’s Opinion
Reaffirms and extends Martin
Judicial power extends to all cases arising under the Constitution regardless of parties
Dim view of the capacities of state judges
Judges completely dependant on the state for their positions and salary
Not independent or insulated from majoritarian pressures
Extra-Constitutional Sources
Note the following sources so far:
The experience under the Articles of Confederation
The Constitutional Convention, debates, and the intent of the framers
The Federalist
Blackstone
