Murdock v. City of Memphis

Supreme Court of the United States
20 Wall. 590, 87 U.S. 590, 22 L. Ed. 429 (1875)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When the Supreme Court reviews a state court judgment, its appellate jurisdiction is confined to the federal questions presented. The Court will not decide non-federal questions unless it is necessary to determine if an independent and adequate state law ground supports the judgment, in which case the state court's decision will be affirmed regardless of any error on the federal issue.

Facts:

Prior to 1844, Murdock and other grantors conveyed land to the City of Memphis in trust, with the intention that a U.S. Navy Yard would be built on it.
On September 14, 1844, the City of Memphis conveyed this land to the United States through a general warranty deed for a consideration of $20,000, without specifying any purpose or trust.
The United States took possession of the land for approximately ten years but never constructed the planned navy yard.
The United States subsequently abandoned the project.
On August 5, 1854, the U.S. Congress passed an act ceding the property back to the City of Memphis 'for the use and benefit of said city.'
Murdock and the other original grantors then claimed a right to the land, arguing that when the land was returned to the City, the City held it in trust for them because the original purpose (the navy yard) had failed.

Procedural Posture:

Murdock and others filed a bill in chancery against the City of Memphis in a Tennessee state court of first instance.
The trial court dismissed the complainants' bill.
The complainants, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, the state's highest court.
The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the decree of the lower court.
Murdock, as plaintiff in error, sought a writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States to review the judgment of the Supreme Court of Tennessee.

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 Act of February 5, 1867, which revised the 25th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, authorize the Supreme Court to review and decide all legal issues, including those of state law, in a case appealed from a state court, once jurisdiction is established based on a federal question?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Miller

No. The Act of 1867 does not confer jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court to decide all questions, including those of state law, presented in a case appealed from a state court. The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to re-examining the federal questions that provide the basis for the appeal. The omission of the restrictive clause from the 1789 Act is not an affirmative grant of broader power; Congress would have used clear language if it intended such a radical change. The statutory language requiring cases to be re-examined 'in the same manner' refers to rules of procedure, not the substantive scope of review. While the Court can look at the entire record, it does so only to determine if an adequate and independent state ground exists that is sufficient to sustain the judgment. If such a state law ground exists, the judgment will be affirmed even if the state court erred in its decision on the federal question, as a reversal would be useless.

Dissenting - Justice Clifford

Yes, implicitly. When a state court erroneously decides a federal question to the prejudice of the plaintiff in error, it is the duty of the Supreme Court to decide the whole merits of the controversy. The 1867 act repealed the 25th section of the Judiciary Act, and its primary change was the omission of the clause restricting review to federal questions. To hold that the Court's jurisdiction remains so limited renders the new law without meaningful effect beyond simply repealing the prior law.

Dissenting - Justice Bradley

Yes. If the Court has jurisdiction at all, it has jurisdiction over the entire case, not merely a question within it. The Constitution grants judicial power over 'cases,' not 'questions.' The original Judiciary Act included a specific clause restricting review to federal questions, but the Act of 1867 deliberately omitted this clause. According to settled rules of statutory construction, the omission of a restrictive clause must be interpreted as removing the restriction. Therefore, Congress intended the Court to consider the whole case on its merits. (However, Justice Bradley also expressed doubt that the Court had jurisdiction over this specific case at all, believing the claim was based entirely on a state-law deed, not an act of Congress).

Analysis:

This case is foundational in establishing the doctrine of 'adequate and independent state grounds,' a crucial principle of federal court jurisdiction and federalism. It limits the Supreme Court's authority over state courts, ensuring that the Court only addresses federal law and does not interfere with a state court's final authority on matters of state law. This doctrine prevents the Supreme Court from issuing what would effectively be advisory opinions on federal questions in cases where the ultimate outcome is controlled by state law. It thus preserves judicial resources and respects the sovereignty of state judiciaries in a dual-court system.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Murdock v. City of Memphis (1875)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"