Cohens v. Virginia

Supreme Court of United States
6 Wheat. 264 (1821)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The United States Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over state court decisions in all cases arising under the Constitution or federal laws, regardless of whether a state is a party to the case.

Facts:

The United States Congress passed an act authorizing the Corporation of the City of Washington to conduct a lottery to raise money for public improvements.
P.J. and M.J. Cohens were agents who sold tickets for this congressionally authorized lottery.
The Cohens sold these lottery tickets in Norfolk, Virginia.
A Virginia state statute expressly prohibited the sale of out-of-state lottery tickets.
Based on this state statute, Virginia authorities initiated a criminal prosecution against the Cohens.

Procedural Posture:

The Commonwealth of Virginia filed an information against P.J. and M.J. Cohens in the Court of Hustings for the borough of Norfolk, a Virginia state court.
At trial, the Cohens defended their actions by claiming protection under the federal act of Congress authorizing the lottery.
The Virginia court found the Cohens guilty and entered a judgment against them, rejecting their federal law defense.
As the Court of Hustings was the highest state court in Virginia with jurisdiction over this matter, the Cohens appealed directly to the United States Supreme Court via a writ of error.
The State of Virginia moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to review a judgment from a state court, especially in a criminal case where the state was a party.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Supreme Court have appellate jurisdiction under Article III to review a state court's judgment in a criminal case where a state is a party and the defendant asserts a right under federal law?

Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Marshall

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.

Analysis:

This case is a landmark decision that powerfully reaffirms and extends the principle of federal judicial supremacy established in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee. By confirming its appellate jurisdiction over state criminal cases involving federal questions, the Supreme Court solidified its role as the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution. The ruling clarifies that a state's sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment does not shield it from appellate review when the state itself initiates a prosecution. This decision was crucial in establishing a uniform and supreme system of federal law that could not be thwarted by individual state courts.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Cohens v. Virginia (1821)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"