McClung v. Silliman
6 Wheat. 598, 5 L. Ed. 340, 19 US 598 (1821)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state court does not have the jurisdiction or authority to issue a writ of mandamus to an officer of the United States government compelling them to perform their official duties.
Facts:
- M'Clung believed he was entitled to a pre-emptive interest in a tract of land in Ohio.
- To initiate his claim, M'Clung required certain legal documents from the federal land office.
- M'Clung requested these documents from Silliman, the register of the U.S. land office.
- Silliman refused to provide the documents to M'Clung.
- Silliman's refusal was based on his belief that the right to the land was already legally vested in another individual.
Procedural Posture:
- M'Clung first sought a writ of mandamus against Silliman in the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Ohio.
- The federal Circuit Court dismissed the motion, ruling that Congress had not vested it with the power to issue such a writ.
- M'Clung then filed an application for a writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court of Ohio for Muskingum county (a state court).
- The Ohio Supreme Court sustained its own jurisdiction over the federal officer but ultimately dismissed the motion on the merits of M'Clung's claim.
- M'Clung, the plaintiff, appealed the Ohio Supreme Court's decision to the United States Supreme 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 a state court have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal officer, such as a register of a United States land office?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Johnson
No, a state court does not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus against a federal officer. The power to control an officer of the United States government can only derive from the government that created the office. The Court reasoned that a federal officer's conduct can only be controlled by the power that created him—the federal government. Since Congress had not even delegated the power to issue such writs to its own lower federal courts in cases like this, it is inconceivable that state courts would possess such a power. The Court concluded that the proper remedy for a person harmed by the actions of a federal ministerial officer is a conventional lawsuit for damages or to recover specific property, not the extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus from a state court.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a fundamental principle of federalism by affirming that state judiciaries cannot command or control federal executive officers in the performance of their duties. It reinforces the supremacy of the federal government within its own sphere, preventing state-level interference with the administration of federal law and property. By denying this power to state courts, the Supreme Court maintained a clear jurisdictional line, channeling disputes against federal officials into ordinary legal actions rather than direct judicial orders against the federal executive branch. This precedent solidifies the structural independence of the federal government from state court oversight.
Unlock the full brief for McClung v. Silliman