Martin v. Mott
25 U.S. 19, 6 L. Ed. 537, 12 Wheat. 19 (1827)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The President of the United States has the exclusive and unreviewable authority to determine whether an exigency exists that justifies calling forth the militia under federal law, and the President's decision is conclusive upon all other persons, including the courts.
Facts:
- Congress passed the Act of 1795, which authorized the President to call forth the militia in cases of invasion or imminent danger of invasion.
- The President of the United States determined that an exigency existed requiring the militia to be called into the service of the United States.
- The President issued a requisition to the Governor of New York to call forth a certain number of the state's militia.
- Jacob E. Mott, a private in the New York militia, was drafted and ordered to rendezvous to enter the service of the United States.
- Mott failed to obey the order and did not enter federal service.
- A court-martial, convened under the authority of the United States, tried Mott for his failure to obey the order.
- The court-martial found Mott guilty and imposed a fine of $96.
- To satisfy the unpaid fine, certain goods and chattels belonging to Mott were seized.
Procedural Posture:
- Jacob E. Mott filed an action of replevin in a New York state court to recover his seized goods.
- The defendant, a deputy marshal, filed an avowry, justifying the seizure as a means to collect a fine imposed by a court-martial.
- Mott demurred to the avowry, challenging its legal sufficiency.
- The Supreme Court of Judicature of New York (a court of first instance) entered judgment in favor of Mott.
- The Court for the Trial of Impeachments and the Correction of Errors of the State of New York (the state's highest court) affirmed the judgment for Mott.
- The defendant, Martin, sought and was granted a writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 President of the United States have the exclusive and conclusive authority to decide whether an exigency has arisen that permits calling forth the militia pursuant to the Act of 1795?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Story
Yes. The authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs exclusively to the President, and his decision is conclusive upon all other persons. The court reasoned that the power to call forth the militia is a high-level executive function intended for 'sudden emergencies' and 'great occasions of state' where a prompt and unhesitating response is vital to the nation's existence. If subordinate officers or individual soldiers could question the President's judgment, it would be subversive of all military discipline and could allow a 'hostile enterprise' to succeed while they debated the legality of the orders. Furthermore, the evidence upon which the President acts may involve sensitive state secrets that cannot be publicly disclosed in a court of law. The language of the Act of 1795, which permits the President to call forth the militia 'as he may judge necessary,' explicitly grants this discretion to the President, making him the sole and exclusive judge of the facts.
Analysis:
This case firmly establishes the President's discretionary authority in matters of national security and military command, treating the decision to call up the militia as a non-justiciable political question. It solidifies the federal government's power over state militias in national emergencies, a crucial principle for a strong central government. The ruling insulates the President's judgment from judicial second-guessing, creating a strong precedent for executive deference that has been influential in subsequent cases involving presidential power, particularly during times of war or national crisis.
