Durousseau v. United States
6 Cranch 307, 10 U.S. 307, 3 L. Ed. 232 (1810)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is granted by the Constitution but is subject to exceptions and regulations made by Congress. An affirmative description of the Court's appellate jurisdiction in a statute is understood to imply a negative on the exercise of such appellate power as is not comprehended within it.
Facts:
- Durousseau and other merchants were parties to bonds given to the United States government.
- The bonds were part of the enforcement of the Embargo Acts, which restricted trade.
- The condition of the bonds required the merchants to reland specific goods within the United States.
- The merchants failed to reland the goods in the United States, thereby violating the condition of the bonds.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States filed suit against Durousseau and others in the United States court for the Territory of Orleans.
- The territorial court rendered judgments in favor of the United States.
- Durousseau and the other defendants (plaintiffs in error) sought review by filing writs of error in the U.S. Supreme Court.
- The Attorney General for the United States (defendant in error) moved to dismiss the writs of error, arguing that the Supreme Court lacked appellate jurisdiction over the territorial court.
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 to review judgments of the court for the Territory of Orleans?
Opinions:
Majority - Marshall, Ch. J.
Yes, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction. While the Constitution grants the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction, it also empowers Congress to create exceptions and regulations. Congress did this in the Judiciary Act by affirmatively describing the Court's jurisdiction, which implies that any jurisdiction not described is excluded. The act creating the court for the Territory of Orleans granted it the 'same jurisdiction and powers' as the district court of Kentucky. The Judiciary Act explicitly provides for writs of error from the Kentucky district court to the Supreme Court. Although the statute for the Orleans court does not explicitly mention Supreme Court review, to deny such review would go against the clear legislative intent to create a uniform judicial system and would improperly render the Orleans court a supreme court for that territory. Therefore, the Court construes the statutes together to mean that Congress intended for judgments of the Orleans court to be reviewable by the Supreme Court in the same manner as those from the Kentucky court.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that Congress possesses the authority under the Exceptions Clause of Article III to limit the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. It establishes a significant canon of statutory construction: an affirmative grant of jurisdiction implies the negation of jurisdiction not granted ('expressio unius est exclusio alterius'). However, the Court tempers this rule by emphasizing that such implications must yield to the clear, overall intent of the legislature, preventing absurd results like the creation of unreviewable inferior courts. This case remains a foundational text for understanding the interplay between the constitutional grant of judicial power and Congress's power to shape it.
