Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 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.[1] The Court had previously asserted a similar jurisdiction over civil cases involving U.S. parties.
The defendants were members of a prominent Baltimore banking family. A U.S. senator and two U.S. representatives served as attorneys for the opposing sides. The two defendants, Mendes I. Cohen and Philip I. Cohen, would later rise to the positions of U.S. Army Colonel and Maryland Delegate (Mendes), and U.S. Postmaster (Philip).[2][3]
Congress passed a bill to establish a National Lottery to raise money for the District of Columbia that was conducted by the municipal government.[2] Meanwhile, Virginia had established its own state lotteries and passed a law to prohibit the sale of out-of-state lottery tickets.[2]
Philip and Mendes Cohen were brothers and managed the Norfolk, Virginia branch of Cohens Lottery and Exchange Office of Baltimore, Maryland.[2] The Cohen firm was a leading vendor of lottery tickets in the United States through its offices in New York, Philadelphia, Charleston, and Norfolk and nationwide through the mail.[2] The firm had a strong reputation in an otherwise-unsavory field and was known for quick payouts to winners. Their reputation helped the firm later become successful in the insurance and banking fields.[2] The firm had been established in 1812 by an older brother, Jacob I. Cohen, Jr., who brought each of his five brothers into the firm. He later was elected to and served as a president of the Baltimore City Council.[2][3]
On June 1, 1820, both Cohens were charged by authorities in Norfolk with selling tickets in Virginia for the National Lottery.[2] The brothers were convicted in a local court and fined $100.[2]
The issue was significant as "lotteries were one of the chief means by which governments raised capital in the" early 19th century.[2] The case challenged the "free flow of commerce" embodied in the U.S. Constitution and could have emboldened other states to challenge the sale of National Lottery tickets in their jurisdictions.[2]
The state courts found that the Virginia law prohibiting sale of out-of-state lotteries could be enforced, notwithstanding the act of Congress authorizing the D.C. lottery. The Cohens appealed to the United States Supreme Court by arguing that their conduct was protected by the Act of Congress authorizing the D.C. lottery.
The Supreme Court concluded with two opinions on this case that were published together. The first opinion, containing the major rulings of constitutional and historical significance, concerned Virginia's motion to dismiss for purported lack of US Supreme Court jurisdiction. The ruling was issued on March 2, 1821, and asserted the Supreme Court's constitutional right to jurisdiction in this case.
Having resolved the significant jurisdictional issues, the Court issued an opinion the next day on the merits of the case: it construed the Congressional statute as authorizing a lottery only in the City of Washington, District of Columbia. (At the time, the District of Columbia consisted of two cities, the other being Alexandria. In the 1840s, it was retroceded to the State of Virginia so that its major slave market could be operated outside the federal capital.) It upheld the convictions of the Cohens in Virginia.
The main issue in Cohens v. Virginia was the preliminary issue of whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal in a criminal case decided by the courts of Virginia. Virginia argued that the U.S. Constitution does not give the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over criminal judgments by the state courts. Virginia also argued that the U.S. Constitution does not give the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over cases in which a state is a party. In effect, Virginia argued that its decision was final and could not be reviewed by the federal courts even though the decision involved the interpretation and application of an act of Congress. Virginia asserted that it had an unreviewable right to interpret and apply federal law as it saw fit.
The Supreme Court relied on Article III, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution, which grants the Supreme Court jurisdiction in "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." The Court found that the U.S. Constitution provides no exceptions to this grant of jurisdiction for cases arising in the state courts or for cases in which a state is a party. Therefore, under its language, all cases arising under federal law are within its grant of appellate jurisdiction. That conclusion was reinforced by the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, which makes federal law superior to state law.
The Court stated that if state court decisions involving federal law were unreviewable by the federal courts, each state could prevent the federal government from executing federal laws in that state and thus allow each state a veto power over federal law. The Court found that to be inconsistent with the language and the intent of the U.S. Constitution, including the explicit grant of judicial power to the federal courts:
"There is certainly nothing in the circumstances under which our Constitution was formed, nothing in the history of the times, which would justify the opinion that the confidence reposed in the States was so implicit as to leave in them and their tribunals the power of resisting or defeating, in the form of law, the legitimate measures of the Union." The Court said that the Constitution's framers had decided to "confer on the judicial department the power of construing the Constitution and laws of the Union in every case, in the last resort, and of preserving them from all violation from every quarter, so far as judicial decisions can preserve them."
The Court also said that unless state court decisions involving federal law could be reviewed by federal courts, there would be as many interpretations of federal law as there are states. Quoting "Federalist No. 80," the Court found that the Constitution was not intended to create "a hydra in government from which nothing but contradiction and confusion can proceed." Rather, relying on "Federalist No. 82," the Court found that the framers intended for the Supreme Court to have appellate jurisdiction over state court cases involving federal law.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court found no restriction or limitation on the plain language of the Constitution granting it appellate jurisdiction over all cases arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. The Court, therefore, had jurisdiction over the appeal from the Virginia courts.
Having found that it had jurisdiction, the Supreme Court upheld the Cohens' convictions. The Court found that Congress did not intend to authorize the sale of National Lottery tickets outside the District of Columbia. Therefore, there was no conflict between the act of Congress authorizing a lottery there and Virginia's statute prohibiting sale of out-of-state lotteries within its boundaries.
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.
The United States courts of appeals are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal judiciary. The courts of appeals are divided into 13 "Circuits". Eleven of the circuits are numbered "First" through "Eleventh" and cover geographic areas of the United States and hear appeals from the U.S. district courts within their borders. The District of Columbia Circuit covers only Washington, DC. The Federal Circuit hears appeals from federal courts across the United States in cases involving certain specialized areas of law. The courts of appeals also hear appeals from some administrative agency decisions and rulemaking, with by far the largest share of these cases heard by the D.C. Circuit. Appeals from decisions of the courts of appeals can be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States decided on March 20, 1816. It was the first case to assert ultimate Supreme Court authority over state courts in civil matters of federal law.
Philip Pendleton Barbour was the tenth speaker of the United States House of Representatives and an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He is the only individual to serve in both positions.
The Judiciary Act of 1789 was a United States federal statute enacted on September 24, 1789, during the first session of the First United States Congress. It established the federal judiciary of the United States. Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution prescribed that the "judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and such inferior Courts" as Congress saw fit to establish. It made no provision for the composition or procedures of any of the courts, leaving this to Congress to decide.
The federal judiciary of the United States is one of the three branches of the federal government of the United States organized under the United States Constitution and laws of the federal government. The U.S. federal judiciary consists primarily of the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. District Courts. It also includes a variety of other lesser federal tribunals.
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court enunciated a rule of civil procedure that would eventually become known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine (also named for the later case of District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462. The doctrine holds that lower United States federal courts may not sit in direct review of state court decisions.
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.
In United States law, jurisdiction-stripping, is the limiting or reducing of a court's jurisdiction by Congress through its constitutional authority to determine the jurisdiction of federal courts and to exclude or remove federal cases from state courts.
This is a list of cases reported in volume 2 U.S. of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States from 1791 to 1793. Case reports from other federal and state tribunals also appear in 2 U.S..
This is a list of cases reported in volume 3 U.S. of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States from 1794 to 1799. Case reports from other tribunals also appear in 3 U.S..
This is a list of cases reported in volume 4 U.S. of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1799 and 1800. Case reports from other tribunals also appear in 4 U.S..
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.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
