Hollingsworth v. Virginia

Last updated
Hollingsworth v. Virginia
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided February 14, 1798
Full case nameLevi Hollingsworth, et al. v. Virginia
Citations3 U.S. 378 ( more )
3 Dall. 378; 1 L. Ed. 644; 1798 U.S. LEXIS 145
Holding
The President has no formal role in the ratification of Constitutional Amendments. The Eleventh Amendment governs cases both past and future.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Oliver Ellsworth
Associate Justices
James Wilson  · William Cushing
James Iredell  · William Paterson
Samuel Chase
Case opinion
Per curiam
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. V, U.S. Const. amend. XI

Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 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. [1]

Contents

Background

Levi Hollingsworth was a Pennsylvania merchant who owned shares in the Indiana Company, which was heavily involved in land speculation. The Indiana Company was seeking to resolve a land claim with the state of Virginia regarding land in what is now West Virginia. [2] Hollingsworth replaced a previous plaintiff in the case, a Virginian named William Grayson. [2] This replacement was made when the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) that a state could be sued in federal court by a citizen of another state; Hollingsworth was from another state, whereas Grayson was not. [2] This derivative suit dragged on, and President John Adams announced on January 8, 1798 that the Eleventh Amendment was ratified. [2] That Amendment overturned Chisholm.

So, the first main issue in the case became whether the Eleventh Amendment was valid, not having been presented to the President for approval or veto. The second main issue was whether the Eleventh Amendment applied retroactively to ongoing cases that had already begun before the Amendment was ratified.

The attorneys for Hollingsworth were William Tilghman and William Rawle. They argued for presidential involvement in the amendment process (and against the constitutionality of the Eleventh Amendment), saying: "Upon an inspection of the original roll, it appears that the amendment was never submitted to the President for his approbation." [1] The proposed amendment had been laid before President George Washington merely "for transmission” to the states. [3]

U.S. Attorney General Charles Lee took the position during oral argument in Hollingsworth that the Eleventh Amendment had been properly proposed, and Lee's argument was reproduced together with the opposing argument and the Court's decision in the case. [1] Here is the exchange between Attorney General Lee and Associate Justice Chase during oral argument: [1]

Lee, Attorney General.... Two objections are made: 1st, That the amendment has not been proposed in due form. But has not the same course been pursued relative to all the other amendments, that have been adopted?* And the case of amendments is evidently a substantive act, unconnected with the ordinary business of legislation, and not within the policy, or terms, of investing the President with a qualified negative on the acts and resolutions of Congress. 2nd, That the amendment itself only applies to future suits. *Chase, Justice. There can, surely, be no necessity to answer that argument. The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution.

Decision, rationale, and later discussion by the Court

The Court decided unanimously that the Eleventh Amendment had been validly adopted. The Court also decided in Hollingsworth that it had no jurisdiction in the case, even though the case had arisen prior to ratification of the Eleventh Amendment. Here is the full text of the Court's opinion: [1]

The Court, on the day succeeding the argument, delivered an unanimous opinion, that the amendment being constitutionally adopted, there could not be exercised any jurisdiction, in any case, past or future, in which a state was sued by the citizens of another state, or by citizens, or subjects, of any foreign state.

In oral argument, Justice Samuel Chase had stated that the president "has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution". [4] The brief report by the reporter of decisions quotes Chase and the arguments of the opposing attorneys, but fails to explicitly give precise reasons for the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in this case, though it is known that none of the earlier amendments had been presented to the president for approbation either. [5]

Article V of the Constitution says: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution". [5] Congress thus may propose an amendment if there is a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress, without waiting for a constitutional convention or a presidential signature or anything else, according to the decision in Hollingsworth. [1] The clarity of this language in Article V has been cited as a reason why the Court did not think that further explanation of its decision was needed. [6]

Although the Presentment Clause generally gives the president veto power, the ancient interpretive principle that the specific governs the general (generalia specialibus non derogant) is applicable to the specific circumstance of a constitutional amendment. [6] Article V requires Congress to propose amendments, "whenever" it deems necessary by the same supermajority specified in the Presentment Clause, and therefore Congress has always treated the latter vote as unnecessary and inapplicable. [7]

The question of whether the president can veto a proposed amendment was also answered negatively in INS v. Chadha (1983), albeit in dicta : [8]

An exception from the Presentment Clauses was ratified in Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 Dall. 378 (1798). There the Court held Presidential approval was unnecessary for a proposed constitutional amendment which had passed both Houses of Congress by the requisite two-thirds majority. See U.S. Const., Art. V…. We also note that the Court's holding in Hollingsworth, supra, that a resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution need not be presented to the President, is subject to two alternative protections. First, a constitutional amendment must command the votes of two-thirds of each House. Second, three-fourths of the states must ratify any amendment.

Hollingsworth remains good law. Even those scholars who find it difficult to justify concede that it is firmly entrenched. [9]

Instance of judicial review

Hollingsworth was one of the earliest instances of judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court. In this case, the Court decided whether the Eleventh Amendment would be upheld or stricken down. Hollingsworth also may mark the first time that the Court struck down a federal law as unconstitutional, assuming that the Court in Hollingsworth was reading the Eleventh Amendment retroactively to invalidate part of the Judiciary Act of 1789. [10]

However, there was an even earlier case, U.S. v. Todd (1794), that also may have held an act of Congress unconstitutional. [11] In 1800, Justice Chase implied that neither Hollingsworth nor Todd involved any unconstitutional federal statute: [12]

It is indeed a general opinion—it is expressly admitted by all this bar and some of the judges have, individually in the circuits decided, that the Supreme Court can declare an act of Congress to be unconstitutional, and therefore invalid, but there is no adjudication of the Supreme Court itself upon the point.

Assuming that Chase was correct, then perhaps Marbury v. Madison was the first such case. Indeed, Walter Dellinger has written that the first judicial review of a constitutional amendment (in Hollingsworth) pre-dated the first invalidation of federal legislation (in Marbury). [13]

Alternative theory about the case

In 2005, an article in the Texas Law Review [3] by Seth B. Tillman theorized that it may be incorrect to interpret Hollingsworth as holding that constitutional amendment resolutions need not be presented to the President for possible veto. [14] This notwithstanding that the Court—in decisions issued in the twentieth century—itself has adopted that interpretation of its prior decision in Hollingsworth. [8] [14] Tillman did not suggest that Hollingsworth was wrongly decided, but only that its scope (as originally understood) might have been narrower than commonly thought today.

Tillman noted that Justice Chase's statement was not his official opinion, but merely a remark from the bench at oral argument, and therefore the failure of the other justices to contradict him should not elevate the status of Chase's remark to an official opinion by either him or by the Court. [3] Moreover, Tillman argued that there were several other grounds potentially explaining the Court's decision, including: that the proposed Eleventh Amendment was in fact delivered to George Washington, he declined to sign it, and Washington's non-signature did not amount to a pocket veto because Congress remained in session. [3] If this latter explanation explains the Court's obscure language in its opinion, then the Court only decided that on the particular facts actually before it the Eleventh Amendment was valid.

Other explanations for the Hollingsworth holding are also possible. For example, Tillman also noted Chase's specific language at oral argument. Chase took the position that the president played no role in regard to the "proposition ... or adoption" of amendments. But the Court's actual opinion only used the "adoption" language, not the "proposition" language used by Chase at oral argument. This might lead to the conclusion that the Court was of the view that once 3⁄4 of the states had ratified a proposed amendment (i.e., how the amendment was "adopted"), then it was part of the Constitution without respect to potential defects in how an amendment (such as the Eleventh Amendment) was proposed.

During oral argument in Hollingsworth, U.S. Attorney General Lee advanced two independent arguments in support of the validity of the Eleventh Amendment (leaving aside his discussion of the issue of whether or not the amendment only had prospective effect). He argued that it was valid because presentment to the president was not necessary. Lee also argued that "the amendment was in due form" because it was enacted using the same procedures which were used in enacting the Bill of Rights. 3 U.S. 381.

Lee did not advance the alternative theory that the Eleventh Amendment was valid because George Washington declined to veto it. [1] If the Court adopted this position in Hollingsworth, which was one of the theories presented in the 2005 Texas Law Review article, then the Court silently based its decision in regard to a matter of law (not fact) on arguments which were not presented to it by one of the parties. On the other hand, Lee's "due form" argument is consistent with the text of the Court's decision. And once Chase had opened discussion distinguishing the proposition of amendments (by Congress) and their adoption (by the States), the parties were on notice that these issues were important to the Court. The parties had an opportunity to speak to these issues at oral argument. If they chose to neglect them, the Court could still address them, and arguably the Court did so in its decision.

Historian David E. Kyvig has argued that the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth adopted the position put forward by Attorney General Lee, although Kyvig published that argument several years prior to the 2005 article in the Texas Law Review. [15] Kyvig suggests that the Court adopted Lee's position. However, Kyvig does not explain which of Lee's specific arguments were adopted by the Court or how the language in the Court's opinion explains the primary issue in the case: the scope of Article V and the scope of Article I, Section 7, Clause 3 and the interplay (if any) between the two provisions.

See also

Related Research Articles

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

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It superseded the Articles of Confederation, the nation's first constitution, in 1789. Originally comprising seven articles, it delineates the national frame and constraints of government. The Constitution's first three articles embody the doctrine of the separation of powers, whereby the federal government is divided into three branches: the legislative, consisting of the bicameral Congress ; the executive, consisting of the president and subordinate officers ; and the judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Article IV, Article V, and Article VI embody concepts of federalism, describing the rights and responsibilities of state governments, the states in relationship to the federal government, and the shared process of constitutional amendment. Article VII establishes the procedure subsequently used by the 13 states to ratify it. The Constitution of the United States is the oldest and longest-standing written and codified national constitution in force in the world today.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Article Five of the United States Constitution</span> Portion describing amendment process

Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process for altering the Constitution. Under Article Five, the process to alter the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments, and subsequent ratification.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Third Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment restricting quartering of soldiers in private homes

The Third Amendment to the United States Constitution places restrictions on the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent, forbidding the practice in peacetime. The amendment is a response to the Quartering Acts passed by the Parliament of Great Britain during the buildup to the American Revolutionary War, which had allowed the British Army to lodge soldiers in public buildings.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment regarding right to a jury trial

The Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. This amendment codifies the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases and inhibits courts from overturning a jury's findings of fact.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1795 amendment restricting ability to sue states in federal courts

The Eleventh Amendment is an amendment to the United States Constitution which was passed by Congress on March 4, 1794, and ratified by the states on February 7, 1795. The Eleventh Amendment restricts the ability of individuals to bring suit against states in federal court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1868 amendment addressing citizenship rights, civil and political liberties

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Often considered as one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, and also those acting on behalf of such officials.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Equal Rights Amendment</span> Proposed amendment to the United States Constitution ensuring equal rights regardless of sex

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution designed to guarantee equal legal rights for all American citizens regardless of sex. Proponents assert it would end legal distinctions between men and women in matters of divorce, property, employment, and other matters. The first version of an ERA was written by Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman and introduced in Congress in December 1923.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Titles of Nobility Amendment</span> Proposed U.S. Constitutional Amendment

The Titles of Nobility Amendment is a proposed and still-pending amendment to the United States Constitution. The 11th Congress passed it on May 1, 1810, and submitted to the state legislatures for ratification. It would strip United States citizenship from any citizen who accepted a title of nobility from an "emperor, king, prince or foreign power". On two occasions between 1812 and 1816, it was within two states of the number needed to become part of the Constitution. Congress did not set a time limit for its ratification, so the amendment is still pending before the states. Ratification by an additional 26 states is now needed for its adoption.

Ratification is a principal's approval of an act of its agent that lacked the authority to bind the principal legally. Ratification defines the international act in which a state indicates its consent to be bound to a treaty if the parties intended to show their consent by such an act. In the case of bilateral treaties, ratification is usually accomplished by exchanging the requisite instruments, and in the case of multilateral treaties, the usual procedure is for the depositary to collect the ratifications of all states, keeping all parties informed of the situation.

Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 6–3, that the line-item veto, as granted in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution because it impermissibly gave the President of the United States the power to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of statutes that had been duly passed by the United States Congress. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the six-justice majority that the line-item veto gave the President power over legislation unintended by the Constitution, and was therefore an overstep in their duties.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Child Labor Amendment</span> Proposed U.S. Constitutional Amendment allowing Congress to regulate child labor

The Child Labor Amendment is a proposed and still-pending amendment to the United States Constitution that would specifically authorize Congress to regulate "labor of persons under eighteen years of age". The amendment was proposed on June 2, 1924, following Supreme Court rulings in 1918 and 1922 that federal laws regulating and taxing goods produced by employees under the ages of 14 and 16 were unconstitutional.

Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court determining that the Eleventh Amendment prohibits a citizen of a U.S. state to sue that state in a federal court. Citizens cannot bring suits against their own state for cases related to the federal constitution and federal laws. The court left open the question of whether a citizen may sue his or her state in state courts. That ambiguity was resolved in Alden v. Maine (1999), in which the Court held that a state's sovereign immunity forecloses suits against a state government in state court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States is the only court specifically established by the Constitution of the United States, implemented in 1789; under the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Court was to be composed of six members—though the number of justices has been nine for most of its history, this number is set by Congress, not the Constitution. The court convened for the first time on February 2, 1790.

Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20 (1922), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled the 1919 Child Labor Tax Law unconstitutional as an improper attempt by Congress to penalize employers using child labor. The Court indicated that the tax imposed by the statute was actually a penalty in disguise.

<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">United States Bill of Rights</span> First ten amendments to the US Constitution

The United States Bill of Rights comprises the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 debate over the ratification of the Constitution and written to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states or the people. The concepts codified in these amendments are built upon those in earlier documents, especially the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776), as well as the Northwest Ordinance (1787), the English Bill of Rights (1689), and Magna Carta (1215).

Tax protester Sixteenth Amendment arguments are assertions that the imposition of the U.S. federal income tax is illegal because the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration", was never properly ratified, or that the amendment provides no power to tax income. Proper ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment is disputed by tax protesters who argue that the quoted text of the Amendment differed from the text proposed by Congress, or that Ohio was not a State during ratification, despite its admission to the Union on March 1, 1803, more than a century prior. Sixteenth Amendment ratification arguments have been rejected in every court case where they have been raised and have been identified as legally frivolous.

The constitutional law of the United States is the body of law governing the interpretation and implementation of the United States Constitution. The subject concerns the scope of power of the United States federal government compared to the individual states and the fundamental rights of individuals. The ultimate authority upon the interpretation of the Constitution and the constitutionality of statutes, state and federal, lies with the Supreme Court of the United States.

McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (1978), was a United States Supreme Court case that struck down the last remaining state restriction against religious ministers holding elected office.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. (3 Dall. ) 378 (1798).
  2. 1 2 3 4 Marcus, Maeva. Suits Against States , pp. 274-289 (Columbia U. Press 1994).
  3. 1 2 3 4 Tillman, Seth. "A Textualist Defense of Article I, Section 7, Clause 3: Why Hollingsworth v. Virginia was Rightly Decided, and Why INS v. Chadha was Wrongly Reasoned", Texas Law Review , Vol. 83, pg 1265, 1300 n. 78 (2005).
  4. ↑ Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. 378 (1798). Notice that Chase did not completely rule out a presidential role in the amendment process, but only with respect to proposal and adoption. Presidents have often transmitted proposed amendments to states, and announced to Congress when ratification has been completed. Likewise, Chase did not exclude the possibility of a presidential veto with regard to the Article V "call" for a constitutional convention, although he did not affirm it either. See Caplan, Russell. Constitutional Brinksmanship , p. 135 (Oxford U. Press 1988).
  5. 1 2 Currie, David. "The Twelfth Amendment" in Unintended Consequences of Constitutional Amendment , pp. 89-89 (David Kyvig ed., U. Georgia Press, 2000). Many years later, President James Buchanan and also President Abraham Lincoln would unnecessarily sign proposed amendments. See Vorenberg, Michael. Final Freedom: The Civil War, the Abolition of Slavery, and the Thirteenth Amendment , p. 210 (Cambridge U. Press, 2001).
  6. 1 2 Bellis, M. "The illusion of clarity" in Obscurity and Clarity in the Law: Prospects and Challenges , pp. 207-208 (Wagner and Cacciaguidi-Fahy eds., Ashgate Publishing, 2008).
  7. ↑ See Black, Charles. "Amending the Constitution: A Letter to a Congressman", Yale Law Review , Vol. 82, p. 209 (1972). Critics of the Hollingsworth decision, such as Professor Black, have analyzed the "two thirds of both houses" requirement in isolation rather than in the context of complementary language (e.g. the mandatory word "shall" and the inclusive word "whenever"), whereas supporters of the Hollingsworth decision have criticized such analysis as the "imaginings of professors". Bellis, M. "The illusion of clarity" in Obscurity and Clarity in the Law: Prospects and Challenges, pp. 207-208 (Wagner and Cacciaguidi-Fahy eds., Ashgate Publishing, 2008)
  8. 1 2 INS v. Chadha , 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (opinion full text). The Court had said basically the same thing in Hawke v. Smith , 253 U.S. 221 (1920).
  9. ↑ Carter, Stephen. "The Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution", Virginia Law Review , Vol. 70, . 101, 130 (1984); Sopan Joshi, Note, The Presidential Role in the Constitutional Amendment Process, 107 Nw. U. L. Rev. 963 Archived 2014-02-02 at the Wayback Machine (2013) (arguing--on originalist grounds--that Hollingsworth was wrongly decided).
  10. ↑ Treanor, William. “Judicial Review Before Marbury”, 58 Stanford Law Review 455, 547 (2005).
  11. ↑ Ritz, Wilfred. "United States v. Yale Todd (U.S. 1794)", 15 Washington and Lee Law Review 220 (1958).
  12. ↑ Cooper v. Telfair , 4 U.S. 14 (1800). Justice Chase did not join the Court until 1796, and so was not on the Court when Todd was decided.
  13. ↑ Dellinger, Walter. “The legitimacy of constitutional change: Rethinking the Amendment Process”, 97 Harvard Law Review 386, 403 (1983).
  14. 1 2 Thomas, Kenneth. The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation , p. 4 (Government Printing Office 2011).
  15. ↑ Kyvig, David. Explicit and Authentic Acts: Amending the U.S. Constitution, 1776-1995, p. 114 (1996).
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.