Luther v. Borden
7 How. 1 (1849)
Rule of Law:
The determination of whether a state government is the established, legitimate government is a non-justiciable political question reserved for the political branches of the federal government, whose decision is binding on the judiciary.
Facts:
- Rhode Island's government operated under a royal charter from 1663, which restricted voting rights primarily to landowners.
- In 1841, dissatisfied citizens who were denied the right to vote organized their own unofficial convention to draft a new state constitution that would expand suffrage.
- The organizers held a popular vote and claimed that their new constitution was ratified by a majority of the state's male citizens.
- Under the authority of this new constitution, they held elections in 1842, creating a new government with Thomas W. Dorr as governor.
- The existing charter government refused to recognize the Dorr government, declared its formation illegal, and continued to operate as the state's authority.
- When the Dorr government attempted to assert its authority with armed force, the charter government declared martial law to suppress what it termed an insurrection.
- Martin Luther was a supporter of the Dorr government.
- Luther M. Borden and other members of the state militia, acting under the authority of the charter government, forcibly entered Martin Luther's house to search for and arrest him.
Procedural Posture:
- Martin Luther filed an action of trespass against Luther M. Borden and others in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Rhode Island.
- At trial, Luther offered to prove that the 'Dorr' government was the lawful government, having been ratified by a majority of the people.
- The defendants justified their actions by asserting they were acting under the lawful authority of the charter government, which had declared martial law.
- The Circuit Court rejected Luther's evidence and instructed the jury that the charter government was the lawful and established government of Rhode Island at the time of the incident.
- The jury returned a verdict for the defendants.
- Martin Luther, the plaintiff, brought a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States, seeking review of the Circuit Court's judgment.
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 question of which of two competing governments in a state is the legitimate one constitute a political question that is non-justiciable for the federal courts to decide?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Taney
The question of which government is the established one in a state is a political question, not a judicial one. Courts cannot and should not decide this issue. Under the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution (Article IV, Section 4), the power to determine the legitimacy of a state government is vested in the political branches—Congress and the President—not the judiciary. Congress exercises this power when it decides whether to seat the senators and representatives sent from a state, thereby recognizing the government that certified their election. The President exercises this power when deciding which government to support in the event of domestic violence. The courts are bound by the decisions of these political departments. Furthermore, there are no manageable judicial standards to determine which government truly represents the will of the people, an inquiry that would involve complex factual determinations unsuited for a judicial tribunal.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Woodbury
I agree with the majority that the judiciary cannot decide which of the two competing governments was legitimate, as this is a political question. However, I dissent on the grounds that the charter government's declaration of martial law over the entire state was an unconstitutional act. Martial law is an extreme measure that suspends all civil liberties and should not be used in a domestic dispute where civil courts are still functioning. Because the act declaring martial law was invalid, it could not serve as a legal justification for the defendants' trespass, and the plaintiff should have been able to proceed with his case.
Analysis:
This case establishes the 'political question doctrine,' a foundational principle of judicial restraint that removes certain issues from judicial consideration. By classifying the legitimacy of a state government under the Guarantee Clause as non-justiciable, the Court carved out a significant area of constitutional law where the judiciary defers to the political branches. This doctrine prevents the federal courts from becoming entangled in inherently political disputes and helps maintain the separation of powers. The precedent set in Luther has been invoked in subsequent cases involving issues deemed textually committed to Congress or the President, such as those concerning foreign relations and the impeachment process.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Luther v. Borden (1849)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"