Yes, the Supreme Court can review the state's decision. The Constitution gives federal courts power over any case involving federal law, no matter who the parties are. To keep the country united, one court—the Supreme Court—must have the final say on what the Constitution and federal laws mean. The Court also explained that a special rule called the 11th Amendment, which says you can't sue a state, doesn't apply here. That's because the Cohens didn't start a new lawsuit against Virginia; they were just appealing a case that Virginia had already started against them.

Yes, the top U.S. court can review the case because it's about a U.S. law. The U.S. government's law that allowed the lottery in Washington D.C. is a real U.S. law, and the top U.S. court can check if state courts are getting U.S. laws wrong. The Virginia court's decision is okay because the U.S. law about the lottery doesn't say it's okay to sell tickets outside of Washington D.C., so it doesn't clash with Virginia's rules against selling them. The court must take on cases it has the power to decide, even if they're difficult or politically charged.

We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given

It is a maxim not to be disregarded, that general expressions, in every opinion, are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision

And speculation that Congress or the President might attempt to politicize a decision of this court does not justify a refusal to exercise jurisdiction over the Committee's lawsuit, for "the judiciary has a responsibility to decide cases properly before it, even those it `would gladly avoid.'"

"It is most true, that this court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction, if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure, because it approaches the confines of the Constitution.*** With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought

A constitution is, to quote Chief Justice Marshall yet again, "framed for ages to come, and is designed to approach immortality as nearly as human institutions can approach it."

Id. "In our federal system, `Congress cannot punish felonies generally;'it may enact only those criminal laws that are connected to one of its constitutionally enumerated powers, such as the authority to regulate interstate commerce. "

These distinctions are important because the Savage rule must be limited to and "taken in connection with the case in which" the holding's "expressions are used."

The court further held that from a substantive standpoint, a court should examine whether the action involves " `the prosecution of some demand in a Court of justice,'as opposed to the orderly disposition of an estate, with the states' role limited to that of any other creditor

But when the Constitution or Congress provide jurisdiction, federal courts have a "virtually unflagging obligation... to exercise the jurisdiction given them."

And this doctrine, like many others in English law, was also recognized early on as a feature of American law: "The universally received opinion is, that no suit can be commenced or prosecuted against the United States."

Yes. The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over this state court judgment. The judicial power granted by Article III of the Constitution extends to all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, without regard to the character of the parties. This 'arising under' jurisdiction is distinct from jurisdiction based on the parties involved. The Court reasoned that for the Union to be preserved, the federal judiciary must have the final authority to interpret and enforce the Constitution and federal laws, ensuring uniformity and preventing states from undermining federal authority. Furthermore, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar this review because a writ of error, brought by a defendant to challenge their conviction, is not a 'suit commenced or prosecuted against' a state; rather, it is a continuation of the original case initiated by the state itself. The state remains the plaintiff, and the defendant is merely seeking review of a judgment.

The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review the case because it involves a question of federal law. The act of Congress authorizing the lottery in the District of Columbia is a law of the United States, and the Supreme Court can review state court decisions that misinterpret or claim to invalidate federal laws. The judgment of the state court is affirmed because the act of Congress does not extend to authorize the sale of lottery tickets outside the District of Columbia, and therefore does not conflict with Virginia's laws prohibiting such sales. The judiciary has a responsibility to decide cases properly before it, even those it would gladly avoid, and cannot decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given.

Cohens v. Virginia

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot