United States v. Ferreira
54 U.S. 40, 13 How. 40, 14 L. Ed. 42 (1852)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 'judicial power' granted to Article III courts by the Constitution does not encompass administrative functions, such as the adjustment of claims against the United States, when those decisions are subject to revision and approval by an executive branch officer.
Facts:
- In 1819, Spain ceded Florida to the United States, stipulating in Article 9 of the treaty that the U.S. would cause satisfaction for injuries suffered by Spanish officers and inhabitants from American army operations.
- In 1823, Congress passed an act authorizing judges of the superior courts in Florida to receive and adjust claims under the treaty, requiring their decisions and evidence to be reported to the Secretary of the Treasury for approval and payment.
- The Secretary of the Treasury initially held that the 1823 act did not apply to injuries suffered in 1812 and 1813, leading Congress to pass a 1834 law extending the provisions but limiting the time for presenting claims to one year.
- Ferreira, a claimant seeking compensation for damages, did not present his claim within the time limited by the 1834 act.
- In 1849, after Florida became a state, Congress passed a special law authorizing the U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Florida to receive and adjudicate Ferreira's claim, and those of certain other persons, under the act of 1834.
- Ferreira presented his claim to the District Judge, who took testimony and decided that a specific amount was due to him.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1823, Congress passed an act authorizing judges of the superior courts established at St. Augustine and Pensacola to receive and adjust claims under a treaty with Spain.
- In 1834, Congress passed another law extending the provisions of the former act to injuries suffered in 1812 and 1813, but limiting the time for presenting claims.
- In 1849, Congress passed a special law authorizing the District Judge of the United States for the Northern District of Florida to receive and adjudicate Ferreira's claim and others.
- Ferreira presented his claim to the U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Florida.
- The District Judge took testimony and decided that the amount stated was due to Ferreira.
- The District Attorney of the United States prayed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court from this decision, and the case was docketed there as an appeal from the District 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 the United States Supreme Court have appellate jurisdiction over a District Judge's award of a claim under a special act of Congress, when that award is subject to revision and final approval by the Secretary of the Treasury?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice TANEY
No, the United States Supreme Court does not have appellate jurisdiction over a District Judge's award when that award is subject to revision and approval by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Court held that the authority conferred upon the judges by the acts of Congress to adjust these claims was not a judicial function as understood by Article III of the Constitution, but rather an administrative one. The judges acted merely as commissioners, whose 'award' was not a judgment of a court of justice. The Court reasoned that the treaty itself created no tribunal and gave no authority to any court; Congress established the mechanism, deriving its authority solely from the law, which could regulate its proceedings and limit its power. The proceeding before the judge was ex parte, with no formal suit, legal parties, or process, and no one authorized to appear on behalf of the United States or summon witnesses. Crucially, neither the evidence nor the judge's award was to be filed or recorded in the court, but instead transmitted to the Secretary of the Treasury, whose approval was required for payment. This power of revision and control by an executive officer, making the Secretary's decision final and conclusive, is fundamentally incompatible with the exercise of judicial power. Citing Hayburn's Case (1792) and United States v. Yale Todd (1794), the Court reaffirmed the principle that powers subject to revision by an executive or legislative branch are not judicial in nature and cannot be exercised by Article III courts as courts. Even the District Judge's attempt to give the proceedings the 'form of proceedings in a court of justice' (e.g., District Attorney's appearance) did not convert them into judicial ones, as such actions were unauthorized by the empowering statutes. Furthermore, there was no legal 'record' in the District Court from which a transcript could be certified for an appeal, underscoring the non-judicial nature of the proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision affirming the strict separation of powers and defining the scope of 'judicial power' under Article III of the Constitution. It clarified that federal courts are limited to exercising judicial functions involving 'cases' and 'controversies,' whose decisions are final and binding, without review by the executive or legislative branches. By distinguishing administrative tasks (even when performed by judges acting as commissioners) from core judicial duties, the Court reinforced the independence of the judiciary and prevented Congress from assigning non-judicial duties that would compromise the courts' constitutional role. This precedent remains critical for understanding the jurisdictional limits of federal courts and the constitutional boundaries of legislative power.
