Foster v. Neilson
2 Pet. 253, 27 U.S. 253, 7 L. Ed. 415 (1829)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In disputes over national boundaries, U.S. courts must defer to the interpretation established by the political branches of government. Furthermore, a treaty provision that constitutes a contract for future action rather than a present transfer of rights is not self-executing and requires an act of Congress to be enforceable in court.
Facts:
- On October 1, 1800, Spain signed the secret Treaty of St. Ildefonso, promising to 'retrocede' the province of Louisiana to France with an ambiguous definition of its territorial extent.
- On April 30, 1803, France ceded the territory of Louisiana to the United States.
- The United States government asserted that this cession included the territory between the Iberville and Perdido rivers, while Spain maintained that this area, known as West Florida, was not part of the deal.
- In September 1803, Jayme Joydra petitioned the Spanish governor for a land grant within this disputed territory.
- On January 2, 1804, the Spanish governor issued a grant for 40,000 arpents of land to Joydra, which was subsequently ratified by the King of Spain on May 29, 1804.
- The plaintiffs, Foster and Elam, later acquired title to the land from Joydra.
- The defendant, Neilson, was in possession of a portion of the land claimed under the Joydra grant.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs, Foster and Elam, sued the defendant, Neilson, in the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to recover a tract of land.
- Neilson, the defendant, filed an exception to the petition, arguing that the plaintiffs' title, derived from a Spanish grant, was void because Spain did not own the land at the time of the grant.
- The trial court sustained the exception and dismissed the plaintiffs' petition.
- The plaintiffs brought the cause before the Supreme Court of the United States on a writ of error.
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 a land grant made by Spain in 1804 for territory that the United States political branches have consistently asserted was acquired by the U.S. in the 1803 Louisiana Purchase convey a valid title enforceable in a U.S. court?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Marshall
No. The land grant made by Spain is not valid and cannot be enforced by a U.S. court because the judiciary is bound by the determinations of the political branches regarding national boundaries. The U.S. executive and legislative branches consistently asserted that the territory in question became part of the United States in 1803, meaning Spain lacked the authority to issue the grant in 1804. The court reasoned that questions of national boundary are political, not legal, and courts must follow the 'pronounced will of the legislature.' Furthermore, while the 1819 treaty with Spain stated that prior Spanish grants 'shall be ratified and confirmed,' this language represents a contract or promise for future action. This makes the treaty provision non-self-executing, requiring a specific act of Congress to give it legal effect in court. Since Congress had not passed such an act for this grant, and had in fact passed a 1804 law annulling such grants, the title is invalid.
Analysis:
This case is foundational in establishing two critical principles of American constitutional law: the political question doctrine and the distinction between self-executing and non-self-executing treaties. By deferring to the political branches on the boundary dispute, the Court carved out an area of foreign affairs as non-justiciable, ensuring the nation speaks with one voice on such matters. The holding on non-self-executing treaties created a crucial framework for determining when an international agreement has direct domestic legal effect versus when it requires further legislative action, significantly impacting the interplay between international law and domestic U.S. law.
Unlock the full brief for Foster v. Neilson