Virginia v. Tennessee
1893 U.S. LEXIS 2248, 13 S. Ct. 728, 148 U.S. 503 (1893)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A boundary line between states that has been established by compact, long acquiesced in, and implicitly approved by Congress through its legislative acts is binding and conclusive, irrespective of any deviations from the original grant or the absence of express, prior congressional consent.
Facts:
- The original colonial charters for Virginia and North Carolina intended their boundary to be the parallel of latitude thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north.
- Following years of disputes over the unlocated boundary, commissioners from Virginia and North Carolina attempted to survey the line in 1779-1780 but disagreed, resulting in two conflicting lines known as the 'Walker line' and the 'Henderson line'.
- In 1800 and 1801, Virginia and Tennessee (formed from North Carolina) respectively appointed commissioners to resolve the dispute, authorizing them to adopt an existing line or establish a new one.
- In 1802, the joint commissioners agreed on a compromise line equidistant between the Walker and Henderson lines and recommended protections for existing land titles.
- In 1803, the legislatures of both Virginia and Tennessee formally passed acts ratifying the commissioners' report and establishing the compromise line as the 'true, certain and real boundary line' between the states.
- For over eighty-five years following the 1803 agreement, both states and their residents recognized and treated this line as the official boundary, with each state exercising sovereign jurisdiction, levying taxes, and holding elections on its respective side.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Virginia filed a suit against the State of Tennessee directly in the Supreme Court of the United States, invoking the Court's original jurisdiction over disputes between states.
- In its bill, Virginia asked the Court to declare the 1803 boundary compact null and void.
- Virginia prayed that the Court establish a new boundary line running along the parallel of latitude thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north.
- Tennessee answered, arguing that the 1803 compact and the subsequent long acquiescence by both states made the established line the true and unalterable boundary.
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 an agreement between two states establishing their common boundary, which has been acted upon for a long period and implicitly recognized by Congress, violate the Compacts Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it was made without the express, prior consent of Congress?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Field
No, the agreement does not violate the Compacts Clause. A boundary compact between states that has received the implied consent of Congress and has been long acquiesced in is valid and binding. The prohibition in the Compacts Clause is directed at agreements that tend to increase the political power of the states in a manner that encroaches upon the supremacy of the United States, not every agreement between states. Even when consent is required, it need not be express or given in advance; it can be implied from congressional acts and given subsequent to the agreement. In this case, Congress gave its implied consent by repeatedly recognizing the 1803 boundary in its own legislation creating judicial, revenue, and election districts. Furthermore, the doctrine of prescription and acquiescence holds that a boundary line recognized and acted upon for a long period is conclusive, promoting stability and security of rights for both states and individuals. The nearly century of acquiescence by both Virginia and Tennessee provides a conclusive reason to uphold the 1803 line as the true and permanent boundary.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the Compacts Clause by establishing that only agreements threatening the political balance between states and the federal government require congressional consent. By endorsing the validity of implied and subsequent consent, the Court provided states with a practical mechanism to resolve local issues, like boundary disputes, without formal, prior federal intervention. The ruling powerfully merges constitutional interpretation with the common law doctrine of acquiescence, establishing that long-standing practice and recognition can cure potential procedural defects in interstate agreements. This prioritizes stability, reliance interests, and the peaceful settlement of disputes over strict adherence to historical or procedural formalities.
