What famous person represented Hylton before the U.S. Supreme Court?
John Marshall represented Daniel Hylton before the U.S. Supreme Court in Ware v. Hylton. Though he lost the case, five years later Marshall would become chief justice of the Court for thirty-four years and in the estimation of most historians become the Court’s greatest chief justice.
In what case did the justices decline to review pension benefits of soldiers?
The U.S. Supreme Court first examined this question in Hayburn’s Case (1792) and then in other cases collectively called the Invalid Pension Act cases. Congress had passed a law that provided that federal judges would review disability pension claims by soldiers and settlement claims of dead soldiers’ wives and orphans. One of these individuals was veteran William Hayburn. The law also provided that the judges’ decisions would be reviewed by the secretary of war. A group of federal judges, including five U.S. Supreme Court justices, wrote letters to President George Washington, declining the appointments because they believed it violated separation of powers principles. To the justices, it was inconsistent with separation of powers principles to have their decisions reviewed by an executive branch official.
The three-judge circuit court for the district of New York, which included Chief Justice John Jay and Justice William Cushing, issued an opinion to President Washington, explaining their opposition to the law. “That neither the legislative nor the executive branches, can constitutionally assign to the judicial any duties, but such as are properly judicial, and to be performed in a judicial matter,” they wrote.
The three-judge circuit court for the district of Pennsylvania, which included Justices James Wilson and John Blair, wrote a letter to President Washington. They wrote that the law was “radically inconsistent with the independence of that judicial power which is vested in the courts; and consequently, with that important principle which is so strictly observed by the constitution of the United States.”
Finally, the two-judge circuit court for the district of North Carolina, which included Justice James Iredell, also objected to the practice by letter to President Washington. The judges noted that the law “subjects the decision of the court to a mode of revision, which we consider to be unwarranted by the constitution.” Congress responded to Hayburn’s Case by passing a new law dealing with veterans’ pensions.
Why is Hayburn’s Case important?
The case was important because it helped establish the principle of judicial independence: the executive and legislative branches could not place the federal courts, including U.S. Supreme Court justices, in a subservient role when it comes to interpreting the law.
In what case did the U.S. Supreme Court assert jurisdiction over admiralty disputes involving captured ships?
The U.S. Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Jay, ruled in Glass v. The Sloop Betsey (1794) that federal courts in the United States have jurisdiction over captured vessels taken into American ports even if the ships involved are not American. The issue arose after a French ship, the Citizen Genet, captured a Swedish vessel called the Sloop Betsey and sent the vessel into Baltimore. The French captain, Pierre Arcade Johannene, asserted that France had the right to set up its own prize court, a court specifically designed to hear admiralty disputes, in the United States to hear this dispute.
The U.S. Supreme Court determined that “no foreign power can of right institute, or erect, any court of judicature of any kind, within the jurisdiction of the United States.” The Court also determined that “every District Court in the United States, possesses all the powers of a court of Admiralty.”
Why is the captured ship decision important?
The Glass v. The Sloop Betsey case is important for at least two reasons. One, it established that the Court had jurisdiction to hear admiralty and prize disputes, involving the capture and detainment of various ships and vessels. This became a source of many cases for the Court in the early years. Second, the case is perhaps even more important because it established the United States as an independent power willing to stand up to other countries, such as France, and assert itself in the international arena.
How many and which justices served on the Marshall Court?
Sixteen justices served on the Marshall Court, including Chief Justice John Marshall and Justices William Cushing, William Paterson, Samuel Chase, Bushrod Washington, Alfred Moore, William Johnson, Henry Brockholst Livingston, Thomas Todd, Gabriel Duvall, Joseph Story, Smith Thompson, Robert Trimble, John McLean, Henry Baldwin, and James M. Wayne.
What is noteworthy about the tenure of several of the Marshall Court justices?
From 1812 to 1824, Chief Justice John Marshall and Justices Washington, Johnson, Todd, Duvall, Story, and Thompson served the longest tenure of any sitting justices in the Court’s history.
What government positions did Marshall have before serving as chief justice?
Marshall served many terms in the Virginia House of Delegates, beginning in 1782. He also served as a delegate to the Virginia state convention for ratification of the U.S. Constitution, minister to France in 1797–98, a U.S. representative in 1799–1800, and the secretary of state under President John Adams in 1800–1801.
Why is Marshall considered the greatest of the chief justices?
In his 1996 biography of Marshall, author Jean Edward Smith referred to the chief justice as “the Definer of the Nation.” Marshall’s opinions gave the U.S. Supreme Court and the judicial branch the power and respect that they deserved. He did this in many ways. For example, he persuaded his colleagues to drop the practice of in sepiatim opinions, where each justice would speak and issue his opinion. Under Marshall, the Court often spoke in one, unified voice—many times through the chief justice. He also established the principle of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison (1803), which gave the judiciary the power to review the constitutionality of legislation and regulations. Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in her book The Majesty of the Law: “It is no overstatement to claim that Chief Justice Marshall fulfilled the Constitution’s promise of an independent federal judiciary.”
U.S. Supreme Court chief justice John Marshall. AP Images.
Another factor of Marshall’s greatness is that he was the first chief justice to serve for any length of time. (He served for thirty-four years; the first chief justice, John Jay, had previously served the longest—six years.) Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who served from 1902 to 1932, believed part of Marshall’s greatness lay in his “being there” during the formative period of the nation. But Marshall was more than just an accidental force of history; he had great leadership abilities that enabled him to guide the Court during his lengthy term.
Whom did John Marshall believe should be chief justice?
Marshall
