Ableman v. Booth

Last updated

Ableman v. Booth
United States v. Booth
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued January 19, 1859
Decided March 7, 1859
Full case nameStephen V. Ableman, plaintiff in error v. Sherman M. Booth; and the United States, plaintiff in error v. Sherman M. Booth
Citations62 U.S. 506 ( more )
21 How. 506; 16 L. Ed. 169
Holding
A state court cannot grant a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner arrested under the authority of the United States and in federal custody.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Roger B. Taney
Associate Justices
John McLean  · James M. Wayne
John Catron  · Peter V. Daniel
Samuel Nelson  · Robert C. Grier
John A. Campbell  · Nathan Clifford
Case opinion
MajorityTaney, joined by unanimous

Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 506 (1859), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, [1] overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. The Court found that under the Constitution, federal courts have the final power to decide cases arising under the Constitution and federal statutes, and that the States do not have the power to overturn those decisions. Thus, Wisconsin did not have the authority to nullify federal judgments or statutes. For example, it is illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals acting under federal laws. The Ableman decision emphasized the dual form of American government and the independence of State and federal courts from each other.

Contents

The federal law in question was a strengthened Fugitive Slave Act, which northern free states saw as violating their territorial integrity, and conflicting with their traditions of liberty.

Background

In 1850, the Congress of the United States adopted a strengthened Fugitive Slave Act as part of the Compromise of 1850. Tensions over slavery in the United States, nonetheless, continued to rise.

In 1854, abolitionist editor Sherman Booth was arrested for violating the Act [1] when he allegedly helped incite a mob to rescue an escaped slave, Joshua Glover, in Wisconsin from US Marshal Stephen V. R. Ableman. Booth sought a writ of habeas corpus from a Wisconsin state judge. The Wisconsin judge granted the writ, ordering Booth released from federal custody. The US Marshal appealed to the state supreme court, which ruled the federal law unconstitutional and affirmed Booth's release. When Ableman turned to the federal courts, the Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to recognize the authority of the federal courts, again ordered Booth's release, and declared the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 unconstitutional. The Wisconsin Supreme Court thereby attempted to annul the judgment of the federal court. Glover escaped to Canada, beyond the reach of Federal law enforcement.

When the case was appealed, the Wisconsin Supreme Court even refused to send the record for review, despite a direct order by U.S. Chief Justice Roger Taney, thereby forcing the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a decision without the record. [2]

Decision

The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, [1] stated that the Wisconsin Supreme Court had effectively asserted the supremacy of state courts over federal courts in cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. The Court noted that if the Wisconsin courts could annul the judgment of conviction by the federal district court in this case, then any state court could annul any conviction under federal law. The Court held that the states do not have that power.

The Court stated that in adopting the Constitution, the people granted certain powers to the federal government:

it was felt by the statesmen who framed the Constitution and by the people who adopted it that it was necessary that many of the rights of sovereignty which the States then possessed should be ceded to the General Government, and that, in the sphere of action assigned to it, it should be supreme, and strong enough to execute its own laws by its own tribunals, without interruption from a State or from State authorities.

This was accomplished by adoption of the Supremacy Clause, which makes federal law the supreme law of the land:

this Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be passed in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Court noted that the supremacy of federal law could be effective only if the federal government were given judicial power to enforce federal law. If the interpretation of the Constitution and federal statutes were left to the states, then

conflicting decisions would unavoidably take place... . The Constitution and laws and treaties of the United States, and the powers granted to the Federal Government, would soon receive different interpretations in different States, and the Government of the United States would soon become one thing in one State and another thing in another. It was essential, therefore, to its very existence as a Government that it should have the power of establishing courts of justice, altogether independent of State power, to carry into effect its own laws, and that a tribunal should be established in which all cases which might arise under the Constitution and laws and treaties of the United States, whether in a State court or a court of the United States, should be finally and conclusively decided.

Accordingly, said the Court, the Constitution granted this judicial power to the federal government. The Constitution provides in Article III that the judicial power in all cases arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States rests in the federal courts, and that the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction in all such cases.

Therefore, the Court concluded that the Constitution gives the federal courts the final authority in matters involving interpretation of the Constitution and laws of the United States. Because the Constitution grants this power to the federal courts, the state courts do not have the power to review or interfere with the judgments of federal courts in matters arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. [1] The Court therefore found that the power of the State of Wisconsin "is limited and restricted by the Constitution of the United States." Wisconsin did not have the power to nullify the judgment of the federal court or to hold the Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional. [1] Booth's conviction therefore was upheld.

Aftermath

The case radicalized Wisconsin politics and furthered the polarization of the nation just before the American Civil War. [2] The facts of the case and the early rulings occurred in 1854–1855. As a result, in the 1856 state elections, the new Wisconsin Republican party ran on a strong anti-Federal Fugitive Slave Act platform, and took both houses of the legislature. The new legislature required the state's U.S. Senate candidates to pledge their support for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. [2]

Booth was ultimately pardoned for his offense by President James Buchanan shortly before he left office in 1861.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Article Three of the United States Constitution</span> Portion of the US Constitution regarding the judicial branch

Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the U.S. federal government. Under Article Three, the judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as lower courts created by Congress. Article Three empowers the courts to handle cases or controversies arising under federal law, as well as other enumerated areas. Article Three also defines treason.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Article Four of the United States Constitution</span> Portion of the US Constitution regarding states

Article Four of the United States Constitution outlines the relationship between the various states, as well as the relationship between each state and the United States federal government. It also empowers Congress to admit new states and administer the territories and other federal lands.

Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821), is a landmark case by the Supreme Court of the United States that is most notable for the Court's assertion of its power to review state supreme court decisions in criminal law matters if defendants claim that their constitutional rights have been violated. The Court had previously asserted a similar jurisdiction over civil cases involving U.S. parties.

In American political discourse, states' rights are political powers held for the state governments rather than the federal government according to the United States Constitution, reflecting especially the enumerated powers of Congress and the Tenth Amendment. The enumerated powers that are listed in the Constitution include exclusive federal powers, as well as concurrent powers that are shared with the states, and all of those powers are contrasted with the reserved powers—also called states' rights—that only the states possess.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fugitive slaves in the United States</span> Aspect of history

In the United States, fugitive slaves or runaway slaves were terms used in the 18th and 19th centuries to describe people who fled slavery. The term also refers to the federal Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850. Such people are also called freedom seekers to avoid implying that the enslaved person had committed a crime and that the slaveholder was the injured party.

Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 precluded a Pennsylvania state law that prohibited blacks from being taken out of the free state of Pennsylvania into slavery. The Court overturned the conviction of slavecatcher Edward Prigg as a result.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fugitive slave laws in the United States</span> Laws passed by the United States Congress in 1793 and 1850

The fugitive slave laws were laws passed by the United States Congress in 1793 and 1850 to provide for the return of enslaved people who escaped from one state into another state or territory. The idea of the fugitive slave law was derived from the Fugitive Slave Clause which is in the United States Constitution. It was thought that forcing states to deliver fugitive slaves back to enslavement violated states' rights due to state sovereignty and was believed that seizing state property should not be left up to the states. The Fugitive Slave Clause states that fugitive slaves "shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due", which abridged state rights because forcing people back into slavery was a form of retrieving private property. The Compromise of 1850 entailed a series of laws that allowed slavery in the new territories and forced officials in free states to give a hearing to slave-owners without a jury.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial review in the United States</span> Power of courts to review laws

In the United States, judicial review is the legal power of a court to determine if a statute, treaty, or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution. While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define the power of judicial review, the authority for judicial review in the United States has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sherman Booth</span> American politician

Sherman Miller Booth was an abolitionist, editor and politician in Wisconsin, and was instrumental in forming the Liberty Party, the Free Soil Party and the Republican Party. He became known nationally after helping instigate a jailbreak for a runaway slave in violation of the Fugitive Slave Act.

Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal laws which they deem unconstitutional with respect to the United States Constitution. There are similar theories that any officer, jury, or individual may do the same. The theory of state nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts, although jury nullification has.

The Principles of '98 refer to the American political position after 1798 that individual states could both judge the constitutionality of federal laws and decrees and refuse to enforce those that were deemed unconstitutional. That refusal is generally referred to as "nullification" but has also been expressed as "interposition:" the states' right to "interpose" between the federal government and the people of the state.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Edward V. Whiton</span> American judge, first elected Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court

Edward Vernon Whiton was an American lawyer, jurist, and Wisconsin pioneer. He was the first elected Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, serving on the Supreme Court from its creating in 1848 until his death in 1859. He had previously served in the Wisconsin Territory legislature and was a framer of Wisconsin's constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Abram D. Smith</span> American lawyer and pioneer (1811–1865)

Abram Daniel Smith, often abbreviated A. D. Smith, was an American lawyer, politician, and pioneer. As a leader of the Hunters' Lodges, he was elected President of the Republic of Canada in the midst of the Canadian Rebellions of 1837–1838. Later, he became a prominent lawyer in the Wisconsin Territory, and was one of the first justices of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, where he authored a major opinion against the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Samuel Crawford (jurist)</span> 19th century American politician and judge, Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court

Samuel Crawford was an Irish American immigrant, lawyer, and Wisconsin pioneer. He was one of the first elected justices of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 1853. He was also the first incumbent Wisconsin Supreme Court justice to be defeated seeking re-election.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws. It provides that state courts are bound by, and state constitutions subordinate to, the supreme law. However, federal statutes and treaties must be within the parameters of the Constitution; that is, they must be pursuant to the federal government's enumerated powers, and not violate other constitutional limits on federal power, such as the Bill of Rights—of particular interest is the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that the federal government has only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law in the Taney Court</span> Aspect of U.S. judicial history (1836–1864)

The Taney Court heard thirty criminal law cases, approximately one per year. Notable cases include Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), United States v. Rogers (1846), Ableman v. Booth (1858), Ex parte Vallandigham (1861), and United States v. Jackalow (1862).

Tarble's Case, 80 U.S. 397 (1872), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a State judge has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus, or to continue proceedings under the writ when issued, for the discharge of a person held by the authority, or claim and color of the authority, of the United States by an officer of that government.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Hoiberg, Dale H. (2010)
  2. 1 2 3 Baker, H. Robert (2006). "Ableman v. Booth (Sherman Booth Case)". Encyclopedia of African American history, 1619-1895 : from the colonial period to the age of Frederick Douglass. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press. pp. 1–2. ISBN   0195167775. OCLC   62430770.

Sources

Further reading