The Emily and the Caroline

Last updated

The Emily and the Caroline
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued February 7, 1824
Decided February 24, 1824
Full case nameThe Emily and the Caroline
Citations22 U.S. 381 ( more )
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Marshall
Associate Justices
Bushrod Washington  · William Johnson
Thomas Todd  · Gabriel Duvall
Joseph Story  · Smith Thompson
Case opinion
MajorityThompson, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Slave Trade Act of 1794 and Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves

The Emily and the Caroline, 22 U.S. 381 (1824), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that in admiralty law, indictments require less formality and technical precision than common law indictments. Additionally, the Supreme Court expressed an anti-circumvention principle for statutory interpretation, in which laws should be read in ways that do not undermine their purpose.

Contents

Background

The Slave Trade Act of 1794 prohibited the preparation of ships for use in the slave trade and allowed the federal government to seize ships that violated this act. In this case, the US District Court for South Carolina and Circuit Court ordered the seizure of the ship Emily and brig Caroline because they were being fitted for the slave trade in the Port of Charleston. [1]

Supreme Court

Following oral arguments held on February 7, 1824, the Supreme Court issued its ruling on February 24. In a unanimous opinion, Associate Justice Smith Thompson affirmed the lower courts' judgement. Thompson rejected the ship owners' argument that the "libel of information", the historical term for an indictment in United States admiralty law, should have clarified whether they were instead being charged under the 1807 Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves because both versions of the law criminalized their conduct. In the Supreme Court's view, "in admiralty proceedings, a libel in the nature of an information, does not require all the formality and technical precision of an indictment at common law." [1]

Additionally, the Supreme Court rejected the defense that the ships were seized before they were completely fitted and ready for sea, adopting an anti-circumvention principle for statutory interpretation that rejects readings that would undermine the law's purpose. As long as ships had begun preparations that indicated their use in the slave trade while docked at an American port, they could be seized by the federal government. [1]

Legacy

In 2024, the US Department of Justice and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor referenced this decision in the cases Garland v. Cargill and Garland v. VanDerStok to argue that the Gun Control Act of 1968 should not be interpreted in ways that undermine its purpose of regulating the sale of firearms. [2] [3]

Related Research Articles

<i>United States v. The Amistad</i> 1841 U.S. Supreme Court case on the legality of the Atlantic slave trade

United States v. Schooner Amistad, 40 U.S. 518 (1841), was a United States Supreme Court case resulting from the rebellion of Africans on board the Spanish schooner La Amistad in 1839. It was an unusual freedom suit that involved international diplomacy as well as United States law. The historian Samuel Eliot Morison described it in 1969 as the most important court case involving slavery before being eclipsed by that of Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1857.

Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech or organization, that tends toward rebellion against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward, or insurrection against, established authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interest of sedition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Merrick Garland</span> American lawyer and jurist (born 1952)

Merrick Brian Garland is an American lawyer and jurist who has served as the 86th United States attorney general since 2021. He previously served as a circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 1997 to 2021. In 2016, President Barack Obama nominated Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the U.S. Senate refused to hold a vote to confirm him.

Vice admiralty courts were juryless courts located in British colonies that were granted jurisdiction over local legal matters related to maritime activities, such as disputes between merchants and seamen.

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are the procedural rules that govern how federal criminal prosecutions are conducted in United States district courts and the general trial courts of the U.S. government. They are the companion to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The admissibility and use of evidence in criminal proceedings are governed by the separate Federal Rules of Evidence.

Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), was a Supreme Court of the United States case decided regarding whether the United States President has the power to remove executive officials of a quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial administrative body for reasons other than what is allowed by Congress. The Court held that the President did not have this power. However, Humphrey's has been distinguished by Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In Seila, Chief Justice John Roberts described Humphrey's as holding that Congress may occasionally create independent agencies with removal only for cause if such agencies share the characteristics of the FTC in 1935.

The Vice Admiralty Court was a prerogative court established in the late 18th century in the colony of New South Wales, which was to become a state of Australia. A vice admiralty court is in effect an admiralty court. The word "vice" in the name of the court denoted that the court represented the Lord Admiral of the United Kingdom. In English legal theory, the Lord Admiral, as vice-regal of the monarch, was the only person who had authority over matters relating to the sea. The Lord Admiral would authorize others as his deputies or surrogates to act. Generally, he would appoint a person as a judge to sit in the Court as his surrogate. By appointing Vice-Admirals in the colonies, and by constituting courts as Vice-Admiralty Courts, the terminology recognized that the existence and superiority of the "mother" court in the United Kingdom. Thus, the "vice" tag denoted that whilst it was a separate court, it was not equal to the "mother" court. In the case of the New South Wales court, a right of appeal lay back to the British Admiralty Court, which further reinforced this superiority. In all respects, the court was an Imperial court rather than a local Colonial court.

United States v. Schooner Sally, 6 U.S. 406 (1805), was an 1805 decision of the United States Supreme Court which found that the question of forfeiture of a vessel is of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, not of common law.

The origins of the United States' defamation laws pre-date the American Revolution; one influential case in 1734 involved John Peter Zenger and established precedent that "The Truth" is an absolute defense against charges of libel. Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court failed to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional "Common Law" of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases barred strict liability for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous as to be obviously facetious. Recent cases have added precedent on defamation law and the Internet.

<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

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">James M. Wayne</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1835 to 1867

James Moore Wayne was an American attorney, judge and politician who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1835 to 1867. He previously served as the sixteenth mayor of Savannah, Georgia, from 1817 to 1819 and the member of the United States House of Representatives for Georgia's at-large congressional district from 1829 to 1835, when he was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Andrew Jackson. He was a member of the Democratic Party.

The Antelope, 23 U.S. 66 (1825), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States considered, for the first time, the legitimacy of the international slave trade, and determined "that possession on board of a vessel was evidence of property".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law in the Marshall Court</span>

The Marshall Court (1801–1835) heard forty-one criminal law cases, slightly more than one per year. Among such cases are United States v. Simms (1803), United States v. More (1805), Ex parte Bollman (1807), United States v. Hudson (1812), Cohens v. Virginia (1821), United States v. Perez (1824), Worcester v. Georgia (1832), and United States v. Wilson (1833).

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.

<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).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Slave Trade Act of 1800</span> Law amending the Slave Trade Act of 1794

The Slave Trade Act of 1800 was a law passed by the United States Congress to build upon the Slave Trade Act of 1794, limiting American involvement in the trade of human cargo. It was signed into law by President John Adams on May 10, 1800. This was among several acts of Congress that eventually outlawed the importation of slaves to the United States. The owning of slaves, and the domestic trade, would later be made illegal throughout the U.S. by the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1865 following the American Civil War.

Garland v. Cargill, 602 U.S. 406 (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the classification of bump stocks as "machine guns" under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) by the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in 2018. In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that bump stocks are not machine guns for purposes of the NFA, vacating the ATF rule and finding that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority.

Garland v. VanDerStok is a pending United States Supreme Court case regarding the 2021 Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) regulatory revisions of the Gun Control Act of 1986's definitions of firearm, firearm frame, and receiver. On June 30, 2023, federal District Court Judge Reed O'Connor granted a motion for summary judgment against the ATF, vacating the receiver rule nationwide on the grounds that the agency had exceeded its statutory authority.

References

  1. 1 2 3 The Emily and the Caroline,22U.S.381(S.Ct.1824).
  2. Millhiser, Ian (February 19, 2024). "The Supreme Court Will Decide Whether to Let Civilians Own Automatic Weapons". Vox . Retrieved October 10, 2024.
  3. Millhiser, Ian (February 28, 2024). "How Amy Coney Barrett Could Save Us From Fully Legal Automatic Weapons". Vox . Retrieved October 10, 2024.

Further reading