Martin v. Hunter's Lessee
1 Wheat. 304 (1816)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Article III of the U.S. Constitution grants the U.S. Supreme Court the authority to exercise appellate jurisdiction over state court decisions that involve questions of federal law. Section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorizes this review, is constitutional.
Facts:
- Lord Fairfax, a British loyalist, held a large tract of land in Virginia known as the Northern Neck.
- Upon his death in 1781, Lord Fairfax willed the property to his nephew, Denny Martin, who was a British subject.
- Virginia passed laws to confiscate property owned by British subjects, and in 1789, granted a portion of the Fairfax land to David Hunter.
- A dispute arose between Martin, who claimed title under his uncle's will, and Hunter, who claimed title under the state grant from Virginia.
- Martin's claim was based on the argument that his property rights were protected by the Treaty of Peace of 1783 and the Jay Treaty of 1794 between the United States and Great Britain.
Procedural Posture:
- Hunter's lessee brought an action of ejectment against Martin's lessee in the Virginia District Court at Winchester (a state trial court).
- The state trial court ruled in favor of Martin.
- Hunter appealed to the Virginia Court of Appeals, the highest court of the state.
- The Virginia Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and entered a judgment for Hunter.
- Martin then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which, in Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee, reversed the Virginia Court of Appeals and held that the federal treaty protected Martin's title.
- The U.S. Supreme Court issued a mandate to the Virginia Court of Appeals to enter judgment for Martin.
- The Virginia Court of Appeals refused to obey the mandate, declaring that Section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional and that the Supreme Court lacked appellate jurisdiction over state courts.
- Martin obtained a new writ of error to bring the case back to the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Virginia court's refusal.
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 appellate power of the U.S. Supreme Court extend to judgments of state courts, and is Section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorizes this review, constitutional?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Story
Yes, the appellate power of the Supreme Court constitutionally extends to the highest state courts. The U.S. Constitution was created by 'the people of the United States,' not by sovereign states, and it established a supreme national government with the power to act upon states. Article III grants the federal judiciary power over 'all cases' arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. The Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction is not limited to lower federal courts; it extends to 'cases,' not specific 'courts.' Furthermore, the Supremacy Clause of Article VI makes the Constitution and federal laws binding on state judges. For the legal system to function, there must be a final, uniform interpretation of federal law, which can only be achieved through Supreme Court review of state court decisions on federal questions.
Concurring - Justice Johnson
Yes. While agreeing with the judgment, Justice Johnson expressed concern about the potential for conflict between federal and state courts. He viewed the issue as a momentous one for the permanence of the Union. He suggested that the exercise of federal appellate power should be done in a way that respects state tribunals, possibly through an 'alternative judgment' where the state court has the option to execute the Supreme Court's judgment or allow the Supreme Court to do so itself. Ultimately, he affirmed the necessity of a supreme judicial power to protect the federal government's constitutional authority and ensure uniformity.
Analysis:
This landmark decision firmly established the supremacy of federal law and the U.S. Supreme Court's role as the ultimate arbiter of federal legal questions. By confirming its appellate jurisdiction over state courts, the Court prevented the legal chaos that would arise from having federal laws and the Constitution interpreted differently by each state. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee is a foundational case for American federalism and judicial power, reinforcing the principle that the federal government possesses sufficient authority to enforce its laws and maintain uniformity across the entire nation, even against the resistance of state governments.
