Congress passed a law on September 23, 1789, called the Compensation Act, that provided for the salaries of federal officials. The associate justices received $4,000 per year, while the chief justice received $4,500 per year.
When did the Supreme Court initially meet?
The U.S. Supreme Court initially met in February 1790. The Judiciary Act of 1789 provided that the Court would hold two sessions annually, beginning the first Mondays of February and August.
How many decisions did the U.S. Supreme Court make during its first three terms?
The Court heard no cases during its first three terms in February 1790, August 1790, and February 1791. There were no cases before the Court in those original terms and the justices handled administrative matters at the high court. Soon, though, the justices were busy with the burdens of riding circuit—serving in the lower federal circuit courts.
DECISIONS
What famous decision in the 1790s led to a constitutional amendment?
The Court decided 4–1 in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) that the state of Georgia could be sued by a South Carolina citizen. This decision caused great uproar and led to the Congressional passage of the Eleventh Amendment, which generally prohibits states from being hauled into court by individuals (at least for monetary damages).
The case arose because the state of Georgia did not pay for supplies to South Carolina merchant Robert Farquhar. The state refused to pay Farquhar because he was a Loyalist (loyal to England). Georgia made the legal argument that it was immune from suit because it was a state that could not be sued by a citizen of another state. After Farquhar died, the executor of his estate, Alexander Chisholm (who also was from South Carolina), then sued the state in federal court for nearly $70,000. Georgia, believing it had immunity from a suit by a South Carolina citizen, argued that the federal court did not have jurisdiction.
The Court ruled 4–1 that Georgia could be sued. The justices in the majority focused on the explicit language in Article III of the Constitution, which provides that “the judicial power of the United States shall extend to controversies between a state and citizens of another state.”
Congress adopted the Eleventh Amendment in 1795 and it was ratified in 1798. It provides: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”
Who argued the case for Alexander Chisholm?
Remarkably, U.S. attorney general Edmund Randolph argued the case as a private attorney on behalf of Alexander Chisholm. In those days, government attorneys could supplement their income by taking private cases. Randolph was unopposed by the state of Georgia. The Supreme Court reporter, Alexander Dallas, submitted a written response from the state’s lawyers but no one personally appeared to argue on the state’s behalf.
CourtSpeak: Chisholm v. Georgia State vs. State Case (1793)
Chief Justice John Jay (majority): “If we attend to the words, we find them to be express, positive, free from ambiguity, and without room for such implied expressions: ‘The judicial power of the United States shall extend to controversies between a state and citizens of another state.’ If the Constitution really meant to extend these powers only to those controversies in which a State might be Plaintiff, to the exclusion of those in which citizens had demands against a State, it is inconceivable that it should have attempted to convey that meaning in words, not only so incompetent, but also repugnant to it; if it meant to exclude a certain class of these controversies, why were they not expressly excepted; on the contrary, not even an intimation of such intention appears in any part of the Constitution. It cannot be pretended that where citizens urge and insist upon demands against a State, which the State refuses to admit and comply with, that there is no controversy between them. If it is a controversy between them, then it clearly falls not only within the spirit, but the very words of the Constitution.”
Justice John Blair (majority): “It seems to me, that if this Court should refuse to hold jurisdiction of a case where a State is a Defendant, it would renounce part of the authority conferred, and consequently, part of the duty imposed on it by the Constitution; because it would be a refusal to take cognizance of a case where a State is a party.”
Justice James Wilson (majority): “‘The judicial power of the United States shall extend to controversies, between a state and citizens of another State.’ Could the strictest legal language; could even that language, which is peculiarly appropriated to an art, deemed, by a great master, to be one of the most honorable, laudable, and profitable things in our law; could this strict and appropriated language, describe, with more precise accuracy, the cause now depending before the tribunal?”
Justice William Cushing (majority): “Upon the whole, I am of the opinion, that the Constitution warrants a suit against a State, by an individual citizen of another State.”
Justice James Iredell (dissenting): “I believe there is no doubt that neither in the State now in question, nor in any other in the Union, any particular Legislative mode, authorizing a compulsory suit for the recovery of money against a State, was in being either when the Constitution was adopted, or at the time the judicial act was passed.”
John Jay, the nation’s first U.S. Supreme Court chief justice. Hulton Archive/Getty Images.
CourtSpeak: Calder v. Bull Ex Post Facto Law Case (1798)
Justice Samuel Chase (unanimous ruling): “I will state what laws I consider ex post facto laws, within the words and the intent of the prohibition. 1st. Every law that makes an action, done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2nd. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3rd. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when announced. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender.”
Justice William Paterson: “The words ex post facto, when applied to a law, have a technical meaning, and, in legal phraseology, refer to crimes, pains, and penalties…. Here the meaning, annexed to the terms ex post facto laws, unquestionably refers to crimes, and nothing else.”
Justice James Iredell: “The policy, the reason and humanity, of the prohibition, do not, I repeat, extend to civil cases, to cases that merely affect the private property of citizens. Some of the most necessary and important acts of Legislation are, on the contrary, founded upon the principle, that private rights must yield to public exigencies.”
Justice William Cushing: “The case appears to me to be clear of all difficulty, taken either way. If the act is a judicial act, it is not touched by the Federal Constitution; and, if it is a legislative act, it is maintained and justified by the ancient and uniform practice of the state of Connecticut.”
In what case did the Supreme Court define ex post facto laws?
The
