Yes, they can. The court explained that Supreme Court justices had been acting as lower court judges since the beginning of the U.S. government. Because this practice was accepted for so many years by everyone, it has become the settled understanding of the Constitution. It's too late to challenge it now. The court also said it was perfectly fine for Congress to move the case from the old court to the new one it created.

Yes, the government can move cases between lower courts because the Constitution doesn't say they can't. The new law from April 29, 1802, allowed the case to be moved, and the promise to deliver property is part of the whole case. Also, the top judges have been working as lower court judges for a long time, and everyone has been okay with it. It's been happening since the courts were first set up, so it would be wrong to change it now.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<opinion type="majority">


 The chief justice,
 
 having tried the cause in the court below, declined giving an opinion.
 
<author id="b328-10">
 Paterson, justice,
 </author>

 (judge Cushing being absent on account of ill health,) delivered the opinion of the court.
 

 On an action instituted by John Laird against Hugh Stuart, a judgment was entered in a court for the fourth circuit in the eastern district of Virginia, in December term 1801. On this judgment, an execution was issued, returnable to April term 1802, in the same court. In the term of December 1802, John Laird obtained judgment at a court for the fifth circuit in the Virginia district, against Hugh Stuart and Charles L. Carter, upon their bond for the forthcoming and delivery of certain property therein mentioned, which had been levied upon by virtue of the above execution against the said Hugh Stuart.
 

 Two reasons have been assigned by counsel for reversing the judgment on the forthcoming bond. 1. That as the bond was given for the delivery of property levied on by virtue of an execution issuing out of, and returnable to a court for the fourth circuit, no other court could legally
 
 *309
 
 proceed upon the said bond. This is true, if there be no statutable provision to direct and authorize such proceeding. Congress have constitutional authority to establish from time to time such inferior tribunals as they may think proper; and to transfer a cause from one such tribunal to another. In this last particular, there are no words in the constitution to prohibit or restrain the exercise of legislative power.
 

 The present is a case of this kind. It is nothing more than the removal of the suit brought by Stuart against Laird from the court of the fourth circuit to the court of the fifth circuit, which is authorized to proceed upon and carry it into full effect. This is apparent from the ninth section of the act entitled, “ an act to amend the judicial
 
 “
 
 system of the United States,” passed the 29th of April, 1802. The forthcoming bond is an appendage to the cause, or rather a component part of the proceedings.
 

 2d. Another reason for reversal is, that the judges of the supreme court have no right to sit as circuit judges, not being appointed as such, or in other words, that they ought to have distinct commissions for that purpose. To this objection, which is of recent date, it is sufficient to observe, that practice and acquiescence under it for a period of several years, commencing with the organization of the judicial system, affords an irresistable answer, and has indeed fixed the construction. It is a contemporary interpretation of the most forcible nature. This practical exposition is too strong and obstinate to be shaken or controlled. Of course, the question is at rest, and ought not now to be disturbed.
 


 Judgment affirmed.
 

</opinion>

Yes. The U.S. Constitution permits Supreme Court justices to sit as circuit court judges without a separate commission. The court first dispensed with the argument that the case could not be transferred from the Fourth Circuit to the Fifth Circuit, holding that Congress has the constitutional authority to establish inferior tribunals and transfer causes between them. On the primary issue, the court declined to engage in a textual or structural analysis of the Constitution. Instead, it held that the long-standing and unchallenged practice of Supreme Court justices sitting as circuit judges since the organization of the federal judiciary provided an 'irresistable answer' that 'fixed the construction' of the Constitution. This 'practical exposition' through years of acquiescence was deemed too strong to be controlled, and therefore the question was considered settled.

Yes, Congress has the constitutional authority to establish inferior tribunals and transfer cases between them as they see fit, because the Constitution does not prohibit or restrain Congress from exercising this legislative power. The act of April 29, 1802, authorized the transfer of the case from the fourth circuit court to the fifth circuit court, with the forthcoming bond being a component part of the proceedings. Furthermore, the longstanding practice and acquiescence of Supreme Court Justices serving as circuit judges, dating back to the organization of the judicial system, provides a strong contemporary interpretation that should not be disturbed.

Stuart v. Laird

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot