Groves v. Slaughter

Last updated

Groves v. Slaughter, 40 US (15 Pet.) 449 (1841), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court.

Contents

Supreme Court

The case was decided March 10 1841 with a 5-2 vote. Justice Smith Thompson wrote only for himself and Justice James M. Wayne. The remaining three justices wrote separately, concurring only in the result. [1]

The Court ruled that a seller of imported slaves should be able to collect on a defaulted note because the state constitutional provision was not self-executing. [2] Since 1817 the state constitution of Mississippi has permitted the legislature to prevent slaves from being brought into the state for sale. The Court said the execution of the constitutional provision still required legislative enactments to "carry it into full operation" even after the constitution of 1832 set a specific date for the provision to "take effect": "Legislative provision is indispensable to carry into effect the object of this prohibition". [3]

Concurrences

By deciding that the state constitutional provision was not self-executing the court avoided the question of whether the state police power infringed upon the federal commerce clause. [2] Even so, several concurrences of note were written about the commerce clause.

Based on the opinion of Chief Justice John Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden , Justice John McLean stated that "the necessity of a uniform commercial regulation, more than any other consideration, led to the adoption of the federal Constitution". [4]

McLean says that only Mississippi can decide to prohibit the importation of slaves into Mississippi from other US states. McLean explains that while states may not "establish a non-intercourse with the other states" existing prohibitions on slavery were a legitimate exercise of state power because the power over slavery "is local in its character and in its effects". Each state "has a right" to protect itself and guard its citizens from immorality and dangers by abolishing slavery: [5] [6]

The right to exercise this power, by a state, is higher and deeper than the Constitution. The evil involves the prosperity, and may endanger the existence of a state. Its power to guard against, or to remedy the evil, rests upon the law of self-preservation

Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote to state his opinion that the power over slavery was not within any of the powers conferred by the Constitution to the federal government including the commerce power. Considering the commerce clause as a separate matter he says that no case has yet decided if the commerce power is exclusive but that Congress may "abrogate and annul any and every regulation of commerce made by a state". [7] Justice Henry Baldwin wrote separately objecting to the concurrences by McLean and Taney. Baldwin says that "any regulation which affects the commercial intercourse between any two or more states...is within the powers granted exclusively to Congress", adding: [8]

That I may stand alone among the members of this Court, does not deter me from declaring that I feel bound to consider slaves as property, by the law of the states before the adoption of the Constitution, and from the first settlement of the colonies; that this right of property exists independently of the Constitution, which does not create, but recognises and protects it from violation, by any law or regulation of any state, in the cases to which the Constitution applies.

Baldwin says that the right to collect on the defaulted note would be protected under the Federal Constitution even if it was not protected by the state constitution of Mississippi. [9] The state constitution could restrict importation of slaves under its police power for welfare and safety reasons but it could not restrict importation of slaves for sale when slavery was permitted in general. [10]

Dissents

Justices Joseph Story and John McKinley dissented. [1]

Scholarship

Paul Finkelman says that by seeking to protect "the rights of masters who might travel to free states" Baldwin's argument that slaves are property (not people) under the federal constitution was more "shrewd and realistic" than Taney's argument rejecting Congressional authority. [11] Mary Sarah Bilder says that Baldwin's purpose for making these arguments is "oblique". [12]

Related Research Articles

<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.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that held the U.S. Constitution did not extend American citizenship to people of black African descent, and therefore they could not enjoy the rights and privileges the Constitution conferred upon American citizens. The decision is widely considered the worst in the Supreme Court's history, being widely denounced for its overt racism, judicial activism, poor legal reasoning, and crucial role in the start of the American Civil War four years later. Legal scholar Bernard Schwartz said that it "stands first in any list of the worst Supreme Court decisions". A future chief justice, Charles Evans Hughes, called it the Court's "greatest self-inflicted wound".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of the Confederate States</span> Supreme law of the Confederate States of America

The Constitution of the Confederate States was the supreme law of the Confederate States of America. It superseded the Provisional Constitution of the Confederate States, the Confederate State's first constitution, in 1862. It remained in effect until the end of the American Civil War in 1865.

Substantive due process is a principle in United States constitutional law that allows courts to establish and protect substantive laws and certain fundamental rights from government interference, even if they are unenumerated elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution. Courts have asserted that such protections come from the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibit the federal and state governments, respectively, from depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Substantive due process demarks the line between those acts that courts hold to be subject to government regulation or legislation and those that courts place beyond the reach of governmental interference. Whether the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments were intended to serve that function continues to be a matter of scholarly as well as judicial discussion and dissent. In 2022, Justice Clarence Thomas called on the Supreme Court to reconsider all of its rulings that were based on substantive due process.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Archibald Campbell</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1853 to 1861

John Archibald Campbell was an American jurist. He was a successful lawyer in Georgia and Alabama, where he served in the state legislature. Appointed by Franklin Pierce to the United States Supreme Court in 1853, he resigned at the beginning of the American Civil War, traveled south and became an official of the Confederate States of America. After serving six months in a military prison at war's end, he secured a pardon and resumed his law practice in New Orleans, where he also opposed Reconstruction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Henry Baldwin (judge)</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1830 to 1844

Henry Baldwin was an American judge who was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from January 6, 1830, to April 21, 1844.

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.

The Privileges and Immunities Clause prevents a state from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner. Additionally, a right of interstate travel is associated with the clause.

The Fugitive Slave Clause in the United States Constitution, also known as either the Slave Clause or the Fugitives From Labor Clause, is Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, which requires a "Person held to Service or Labour" who flees to another state to be returned to his or her master in the state from which that person escaped. The enactment of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery except as a punishment for criminal acts, has made the clause mostly irrelevant.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Taney Court</span> Period of the US Supreme Court from 1836 to 1864

The Taney Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1836 to 1864, when Roger Taney served as the fifth Chief Justice of the United States. Taney succeeded John Marshall as Chief Justice after Marshall's death in 1835. Taney served as Chief Justice until his death in 1864, at which point Salmon P. Chase took office. Taney had been an important member of Andrew Jackson's administration, an advocate of Jacksonian democracy, and had played a major role in the Bank War, during which Taney wrote a memo questioning the Supreme Court's power of judicial review. However, the Taney Court did not strongly break from the decisions and precedents of the Marshall Court, as it continued to uphold a strong federal government with an independent judiciary. Most of the Taney Court's holdings are overshadowed by the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, in which the court ruled that African-Americans could not be citizens. However, the Taney Court's decisions regarding economic issues and separation of powers set important precedents, and the Taney Court has been lauded for its ability to adapt regulatory law to a country undergoing remarkable technological and economic progress.

Smith v. Turner; Norris v. Boston, 48 U.S. 283 (1849), were two similar cases, argued together before the United States Supreme Court, which decided 5–4 that states do not have the right to impose a tax that is determined by the number of passengers of a designated category on board a ship and/or disembarking into the State. The cases are sometimes called the Passenger Case or Passenger Cases.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John McLean</span> American jurist and politician (1785–1861)

John McLean was an American jurist and politician who served in the United States Congress, as U.S. Postmaster General, and as a justice of the Ohio and United States Supreme Courts. He was often discussed for the Whig Party nominations for president, and is also one of the few people who served in all three branches of government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Samuel Nelson</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1845 to 1872

Samuel Nelson was an American attorney and appointed as judge of New York State courts. He was appointed as a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, serving from 1845 to 1872. He concurred on the 1857 Dred Scott decision, although for reasons different from Chief Justice Taney's.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Roger B. Taney</span> Chief justice of the United States from 1836 to 1864 (1777–1864)

Roger Brooke Taney was an American lawyer and politician who served as the fifth chief justice of the United States, holding that office from 1836 until his death in 1864. Taney delivered the majority opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), ruling that African Americans could not be considered U.S. citizens and that Congress could not prohibit slavery in the U.S. territories. Prior to joining the U.S. Supreme Court, Taney served as the U.S. attorney general and U.S. secretary of the treasury under President Andrew Jackson. He was the first Catholic to serve on the Supreme Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Levi Woodbury</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1845 to 1851

Levi Woodbury was an American attorney, jurist, and Democratic politician from New Hampshire. During a four-decade career in public office, Woodbury served as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, a United States Senator, the ninth governor of New Hampshire, and cabinet member in the Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren administrations. He was promoted as a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States in 1848.

Article I, § 10, clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Import-Export Clause, prevents the states, without the consent of Congress, from imposing tariffs on imports and exports above what is necessary for their inspection laws and secures for the federal government the revenues from all tariffs on imports and exports. Several nineteenth century Supreme Court cases applied this clause to duties and imposts on interstate imports and exports. In 1869, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Import-Export Clause only applied to imports and exports with foreign nations and did not apply to imports and exports with other states, although this interpretation has been questioned by modern legal scholars.

Brown v. Maryland, 25 U.S. 419 (1827), was a significant United States Supreme Court case which interpreted the Import-Export and Commerce Clauses of the U.S. Constitution to prohibit discriminatory taxation by states against imported items after importation, rather than only at the time of importation. The state of Maryland passed a law requiring importers of foreign goods to obtain a license for selling their products. Brown was charged under this law and appealed. It was the first case in which the U.S. Supreme Court construed the Import-Export Clause. Chief Justice John Marshall delivered the opinion of the court, ruling that Maryland's statute violated the Import-Export and Commerce Clauses and the federal law was supreme. He alleged that the power of a state to tax goods did not apply if they remained in their "original package". A license tax on the importer was essentially the same as a tax on an import itself. Despite arguing the case for Maryland, future chief justice Roger Taney admitted that the case was correctly decided.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Slavery and the United States Constitution</span> Provisions of the United States Constitution

Although the United States Constitution has never contained the words "slave" or "slavery" within its text, it dealt directly with American slavery in at least five of its provisions and indirectly protected the institution elsewhere in the document.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">The Constitution of the United States: is it pro-slavery or anti-slavery?</span> 1860 speech by Frederick Douglass

"The Constitution of the United States: is it pro-slavery or anti-slavery?" is a speech that Frederick Douglass gave on March 26, 1860, in Glasgow, in which he rejected arguments made by slaveholders as well as by fellow abolitionists as to the nature and meaning of the United States Constitution. The popularity of the speech led to its being published as a pamphlet.

References

  1. 1 2 "Groves v. Slaughter". Oxford Reference. Retrieved 17 August 2024.
  2. 1 2 Bilder 1996, p. 808.
  3. ↑ 40 US at 500
  4. ↑ 40 US at 504
  5. ↑ 40 US at 504-8
  6. ↑ Finkelman 1981, p. 268.
  7. ↑ 40 US 508
  8. ↑ 40 US 510-13
  9. ↑ 40 US 517
  10. ↑ Eastman & Jaffa 1996, p. 1369.
  11. ↑ Finkelman 1981, p. 270.
  12. ↑ Bilder 1996, p. 811.

Sources

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.