Tennessee v. Davis
100 U.S. 257, 25 L. Ed. 648, 1879 U.S. LEXIS 1829 (1879)
Rule of Law:
Congress has the constitutional power, derived from the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Supremacy Clause, to authorize the removal of a criminal prosecution from a state court to a federal court when the defendant is a federal officer who asserts that the act for which they are being prosecuted was performed in their official capacity under the authority of federal law.
Facts:
- James M. Davis was a United States deputy collector of internal revenue in Tennessee.
- Davis's official duties included seizing illicit distilleries and the apparatus used for unlawful distillation.
- While attempting to enforce federal revenue laws, Davis was allegedly assaulted and fired upon by several armed men.
- In response to the assault, Davis returned fire, resulting in the death of one of the men.
- Davis contended that the killing was an act of necessary self-defense, committed to save his own life while engaged in the discharge of his official duties.
- As a result of the killing, Davis was indicted for murder in the Circuit Court of Grundy County, Tennessee.
Procedural Posture:
- Davis was indicted for murder by a grand jury in the Circuit Court of Grundy County, Tennessee, a state trial court.
- Davis filed a petition to remove the criminal case from the state court to the United States Circuit Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, citing Section 643 of the Revised Statutes.
- The case was removed to the U.S. Circuit Court as requested.
- The State of Tennessee filed a motion in the U.S. Circuit Court to remand the cause back to the state court.
- The judges of the U.S. Circuit Court were divided in opinion on the legal questions presented by the motion to remand and certified those questions to the U.S. Supreme Court for a decision.
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 federal law that allows a federal revenue officer, indicted for murder in a state court, to remove the case to a federal court by claiming the alleged act was done in self-defense while performing official duties, violate the U.S. Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Strong
No, the federal law authorizing the removal of the criminal prosecution is a constitutional exercise of congressional power. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to make all laws 'necessary and proper' for executing its enumerated powers. To preserve its own existence and enforce its laws, the federal government must have the ability to protect its officers from state prosecutions that could hinder or paralyze their official duties. The judicial power of the United States extends to all cases 'arising under' the Constitution and federal laws, which includes a state criminal case where a defendant's defense is based on the authority granted by federal law. The Supremacy Clause ensures that federal law is paramount, and allowing federal courts to adjudicate such cases through removal is a legitimate means of protecting federal authority from potentially hostile state court interpretations.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Clifford
Yes, the federal law authorizing removal is unconstitutional as it infringes upon state sovereignty. The police powers of the states, which include the authority to define and prosecute crimes like murder, were never ceded to the federal government. Federal courts have no common-law criminal jurisdiction and can only adjudicate offenses specifically defined by an act of Congress. Murder committed within a state is exclusively an offense against that state's authority. The proper procedure for raising a federal question in a state criminal case is a writ of error to the U.S. Supreme Court after a final judgment, not a pre-trial removal to a lower federal court that is unequipped to try an offense against the 'peace and dignity' of a state.
Analysis:
This decision is a cornerstone of federalism jurisprudence, affirming the supremacy of the federal government and its ability to protect its own functions from state interference. By upholding the constitutionality of federal officer removal statutes, the Court provided the federal government with a critical tool to prevent state prosecutions from being used to obstruct the enforcement of federal law. This ruling significantly shapes the balance of power between federal and state courts, establishing that when a federal officer's conduct under 'color of law' is at issue, the federal judiciary can assert jurisdiction even in the traditionally state-dominated sphere of criminal law. The precedent ensures that federal agents can perform their duties without fear of being paralyzed by potentially biased local prosecutions.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Tennessee v. Davis (1879)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"