Hayburn's Case

Last updated

Hayburn's Case
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided August 11, 1792
Full case nameHayburn's Case
Citations2 U.S. 409 ( more )
2 Dall. 409; 1 L. Ed. 436; 1792 U.S. LEXIS 591
Holding
Non-judicial duties cannot be assigned to federal courts in their official capacity.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Jay
Associate Justices
James Wilson  · William Cushing
John Blair Jr.  · James Iredell
Thomas Johnson
Case opinion
Per curiam
Laws applied
U.S. Const., Art. III

Hayburn's Case, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 409 (1792), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States was invited to rule on whether certain non-judicial duties could be assigned by Congress to the federal circuit courts in their official capacity. [1] [2] This was the first time that the Supreme Court addressed the issue of justiciability. Congress eventually reassigned the duties in question, and the Supreme Court never gave judgment in this case.

Contents

Facts and procedural history

By the Invalid Pensions Act of 1792, [3] Congress created a scheme for disabled veterans of the American Revolution to apply for pensions to the United States Circuit Courts. [4] The decisions of the courts in such cases were subject to stay by the Secretary of War, pending further action by Congress. Three Circuit Courts balked, on the grounds that the Constitution insulated them from such non-judicial duties and preserved their decisions from correction by the political branches. They communicated their objections in remonstrances to President George Washington, who shared them with Congress. In the following term of the Supreme Court, United States Attorney General Edmund Randolph petitioned for a writ of mandamus commanding the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania to proceed in accordance with the Act. His original petition was made ex officio, but when the Supreme Court expressed doubts about proceeding in such fashion, he changed his position, averring that he was bringing the petition on behalf of William Hayburn, a pension applicant. At that point, the Supreme Court took the matter under advisement and bound the case over until its next term. [5] While Hayburn's petition was thus pending, Congress intervened with the Act of February 28, 1793, relieving the Circuit Courts of the duty of processing such pension applications.

Decision

The only decision by the Supreme Court in this case was to continue it. None was ever handed down on the constitutional questions it presented. In his report of the hearing and continuance, Dallas appended a long footnote in which he quoted from the remonstrances. At the time of this case, each Justice of the Supreme Court served also on a Circuit Court. Thus, while the Supreme Court of the United States never ruled on the constitutionality of the Invalid Pensions Act of 1792, five of its six members, Jay, Cushing, Wilson, Blair and Iredell, declared it unconstitutional as members of the United States Circuit Courts for the Districts of New York, Pennsylvania and North Carolina.

The decision, however, may have been due to the lack of the authority of the appellant, the Attorney General of the United States, Edmund Randolph, to bring the appeal to the Supreme Court. Attorney General Randolph initiated the case at the Supreme Court neither on behalf of the United States or Mr. Hayburn. The Court declined to rule on a lower court decision, possibly because only the Attorney General wanted it to do so. [6]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defense of Marriage Act</span> 1996 U.S. federal law, repealed in 2022

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was a United States federal law passed by the 104th United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. It banned federal recognition of same-sex marriage by limiting the definition of marriage to the union of one man and one woman, and it further allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states.

Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793), is considered the first United States Supreme Court case of significance and impact. Since the case was argued prior to the formal pronouncement of judicial review by Marbury v. Madison (1803), there was little available legal precedent. The Court in a 4–1 decision ruled in favor of Alexander Chisholm, executor of an estate of a citizen of South Carolina, holding that Article III, Section 2 grants federal courts jurisdiction in cases between a state and a citizen of another state wherein the state is the defendant.

Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. 378 (1798), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled early in America's history that the President of the United States has no formal role in the process of amending the United States Constitution and that the Eleventh Amendment was binding on cases already pending prior to its ratification.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary Act of 1789</span> United States law establishing the federal court system

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.

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case ruling in 1983 that the one-house legislative veto violated the constitutional separation of powers.

Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court delineated the authority of United States federal courts to hear certain kinds of cases under the Case or Controversy Clause of the United States Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">A. Raymond Randolph</span> American judge (born 1943)

Arthur Raymond Randolph is an American lawyer and jurist serving as a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He was appointed to the Court in 1990 and assumed senior status on November 1, 2008.

Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), is an early United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a yearly tax on carriages did not violate the Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 requirements for the apportioning of direct taxes. The Court concluded that the carriage tax was not a direct tax, which would require apportionment among the states. The Court noted that a tax on land was an example of a direct tax that was contemplated by the Constitution.

<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">Montana Supreme Court</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of Montana

The Montana Supreme Court is the highest court of the state court system in the U.S. state of Montana. It is established and its powers defined by Article VII of the 1972 Montana Constitution. It is primarily an appellate court which reviews civil and criminal decisions of Montana's trial courts of general jurisdiction and certain specialized legislative courts, only having original jurisdiction in a limited number of actions. The court's Chief Justice and six Associate Justices are elected by non-partisan, popular elections. The Montana Supreme Court meets in the Joseph P. Mazurek Building in Helena, Montana, the state's capital, an international style building completed in 1982 and named in the honor of former Montana Attorney General, Joseph P. Mazurek.

Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided four important points of constitutional law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Reports, volume 2</span>

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..

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Reports, volume 3</span>

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..

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.

<i>Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services</i>

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services 682 F.3d 1 is a United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decision that affirmed the judgment of the District Court for the District of Massachusetts in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the section that defines the terms "marriage" as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." Both courts found DOMA to be unconstitutional, though for different reasons. The trial court held that DOMA violates the Tenth Amendment and Spending Clause. In a companion case, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, the same judge held that DOMA violates the Equal Protection Clause. On May 31, 2012, the First Circuit held the act violates the Equal Protection Clause, while federalism concerns affect the equal protection analysis, DOMA does not violate the Spending Clause or Tenth Amendment.

United States v. More, 7 U.S. 159 (1805), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it had no jurisdiction to hear appeals from criminal cases in the circuit courts by writs of error. Relying on the Exceptions Clause, More held that Congress's enumerated grants of appellate jurisdiction to the Court operated as an exercise of Congress's power to eliminate all other forms of appellate jurisdiction.

Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbid the imprisonment at hard labor without a jury trial for noncitizens convicted of illegal entry to or presence in the United States.

References

  1. ↑ 2 U.S. 409 Excerpted version of the opinion from "The Founders' Constitution" at University of Chicago
  2. ↑ Farrand, Max (1908). "The First Hayburn Case, 1792". The American Historical Review. 13 (2): 281–285. doi:10.2307/1832615. ISSN   0002-8762.
  3. ↑ Act of March 23, 1792
  4. ↑ Hall, Kermit L. ed. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, Second Edition. Oxford University Press, 2005. ISBN   0-19-511883-9 p. 427.
  5. ↑ Goebel Jr., Julius, 1 History of the Supreme Court of the United States: Antecedents and Beginnings to 1801. MacMillan Publishing Co., 1971. pp. 560–566.
  6. ↑ See Marcus & Teir, "Hayburn's Case: A Misinterpretation of Precedent," 1988 Wis. L. Rev. 4; Bloch, "The Early Role of the Attorney General in Our Constitutional Scheme: In the Beginning There was Pragmatism," 1989 Duke L. J. 561, 590-618 - See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/article3/annotation03.html#sthash.7IjdO3cd.dpuf
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.