United States v. Barker

Last updated
United States v. Barker
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Decided March 15, 1817
Full case nameThe United States v. Barker
Citations15 U.S. 395 ( more )
2 Wheat. 395; 4 L. Ed. 271; 1817 U.S. LEXIS 419; 1817 WL 2036
Case history
PriorError to the Circuit Court of New York
SubsequentUnited States v. Barker, 24 F. Cas. 1004 (C.C.D.Pa. 1824); 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 559 (1827).
Holding
The United States never pays costs
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Marshall
Associate Justices
Bushrod Washington  · William Johnson
H. Brockholst Livingston  · Thomas Todd
Gabriel Duvall  · Joseph Story
Case opinion
MajorityMarshall, joined by unanimous

United States v. Barker, 15 U.S. (2 Wheat.) 395 (1817), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court upholding the common law tradition that private citizens may not demand costs from the federal government. [1] The case involved a motion for costs filed against the United States Government and resolved the previously unanswered question of whether courts could award costs against the United States federal government. [2] The Court's opinion read, in its entirety, "The United States never pay costs." [1] Jurists have remarked that Chief Justice John Marshall's six-word opinion is one of the shortest Supreme Court cases ever written. [3]

Contents

Background

In English common law, parties to litigation could never receive costs unless costs were specifically provided for by statute. [4] The first law to provide plaintiffs the possibility of recovering costs was the Statute of Gloucester (6 Edward I), which allowed for costs in a limited range of cases. [4] The first statute providing costs for defendants was 23 Henry VIII, and costs for penal actions were made available by the statute of 4 James I. [4] However, "because of its position as sovereign suing in its own courts," costs were never available against the government. [4] William Blackstone noted in his Commentaries on the Laws of England that the King would never pay or receive costs at trial. [5]

In the 1796 case United States v. La Vengeance , the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of a citizen who claimed the government had unlawfully seized his ship, and the Court affirmed his judgment "with costs" charged against the federal government. [6] However, the day after the Court issued its ruling in La Vengeance, Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth ordered the words "with costs" be struck from the opinion. [7] According to Chief Justice John Marshall, Ellsworth "observed, in doing this, the court did not mean to be understood as at all deciding the question, whether, in any case, they could award costs against the United States, but left it entirely open for future discussion." [7] Although this question remained unsettled for twenty years after La Vengeance, the Court's opinion in United States v. Barker "finally disposed of the question forever." [8]

Opinion of the Court

Writing for a unanimous majority of the Court, Chief Justice John Marshall delivered what has been described as "[o]ne of the shortest opinions in the books," [3] in which the opinion stated, in its entirety: [9] "The United States never pays costs." [1]

See also

Related Research Articles

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that defined the scope of the U.S. Congress's legislative power and how it relates to the powers of American state legislatures. The dispute in McCulloch involved the legality of the national bank and a tax that the state of Maryland imposed on it. In its ruling, the Supreme Court established firstly that the "Necessary and Proper" Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives the U.S. federal government certain implied powers that are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, and secondly that the American federal government is supreme over the states, and so states' ability to interfere with the federal government is limited.

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that upheld, in a 5–4 ruling, the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law criminalizing oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults, in this case with respect to homosexual sodomy, though the law did not differentiate between homosexual sodomy and heterosexual sodomy. This case was overturned in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas, though the statute had already been struck down by the Supreme Court of Georgia in 1998.

Henry Baldwin (judge) Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

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

Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15, 395 U.S. 621 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court struck down a longstanding New York State statute requiring that to be eligible to vote in certain school district elections, an individual must either own or rent taxable real property within the school district, be the spouse of a property owner or lessor, or be the parent or guardian of a child attending a public school in the district. By a 5-to-3 vote, the court held that these voting requirements violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that the sovereign immunity recognized in the Eleventh Amendment prevented a federal court from ordering a state from paying back funds that had been unconstitutionally withheld from parties to whom they had been due.

Judicial review in the United States Ability of a court in the US to examine laws to determine if it contradicts current 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.

Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 213 (1827), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined the scope of a bankruptcy law in relation to a clause of the Constitution of the United States. It is notable for its era in producing multiple opinions from the justices. Justice William Johnson delivered the majority opinion. Chief Justice John Marshall, Justice Gabriel Duvall, and Justice Joseph Story concurred in part and dissented in part to the Court's judgment, while Justices Bushrod Washington, Smith Thompson, and Robert Trimble dissented.

Sturges v. Crowninshield, 17 U.S. 122 (1819), dealt with the constitutionality of New York creating bankruptcy laws and retroactively applying those laws.

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that Wisconsin Statutes §§ 245.10 (1), (4), (5) (1973) violated the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause. Section 245.10 required noncustodial parents who were Wisconsin residents attempting to marry inside or outside of Wisconsin to seek a court order prior to receiving a marriage license. In order to receive such a court order, the noncustodial parent could not be in arrears on his or her child support, and the court had to believe that the child(ren) would not become dependent on the State.

Laidlaw v. Organ, 15 U.S. 178 (1817), is a case decided by the US Supreme Court that established caveat emptor in the United States.

Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the First Amendment and the ability of the government to outlaw certain forms of expressive conduct. It ruled that the state has the constitutional authority to ban public nudity, even as part of expressive conduct such as dancing, because it furthers a substantial government interest in protecting the morality and order of society. This case is perhaps best summarized by a sentence in Justice Souter's concurring opinion, which is often paraphrased as "Nudity itself is not inherently expressive conduct."

Gabriel Duvall United States federal judge (1752-1844)

Gabriel Duvall was an American politician and jurist. Duvall was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1811 to 1835, during the Marshall Court. Previously, Duvall was the Comptroller of the Treasury, a Maryland state court judge, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Maryland, and a Maryland state legislator.

Aboriginal title in the Marshall Court Court era recognizing Native American tribal rights

The Marshall Court (1801–1835) issued some of the earliest and most influential opinions by the Supreme Court of the United States on the status of aboriginal title in the United States, several of them written by Chief Justice John Marshall himself. However, without exception, the remarks of the Court on aboriginal title during this period are dicta. Only one indigenous litigant ever appeared before the Marshall Court, and there, Marshall dismissed the case for lack of original jurisdiction.

Criminal law in the Marshall Court

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.

Certificate of division Source of appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts to the Supreme Court of the United States

A certificate of division was a source of appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1802 to 1911. Created by the Judiciary Act of 1802, the certification procedure was available only where the circuit court sat with a full panel of two: both the resident district judge and the circuit-riding Supreme Court justice. As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, he did not have "the privilege of dividing the court when alone."

Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc., 472 U.S. 703 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state statute providing employees with an absolute right not to work on their chosen Sabbath violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

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.

References

  1. 1 2 3 United States v. Barker, 15 U.S. (2 Wheat. ) 395, 395 (1817).
  2. ↑ Henry v. United States, 15 Ct. Cl. 162, 167 (1879) (describing United States v. Barker as a case involving a "motion for costs"); Dist. of Columbia v. Lyon, 7 Mackey 222, 224 (D.C. June 3, 1889) (noting that the Court in Barker "finally disposed of the question forever").
  3. 1 2 United States v. Jardine, 81 F.2d 747, 748 (5th Cir. 1936).
  4. 1 2 3 4 Dist. of Columbia v. Lyon, 7 Mackey 222, 223 (D.C. June 3, 1889).
  5. ↑ 3 Blackstone, Commentaries, 400.
  6. ↑ United States v. La Vengeance, 3 U.S. 297, 3 Dall. 297 (1796).
  7. 1 2 United States v. Hooe , 7 U.S. (3 Cranch ) 73 (1805).
  8. ↑ Dist. of Columbia v. Lyon, 7 Mackey 222, 224 (D.C. June 3, 1889).
  9. ↑ Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Johnson Shipyards Corp., 6 F.2d 752, 757 (2d Cir. 1925) ("Chief Justice Marshall rendered the decision of the Supreme Court, the whole of which follows: ‘The United States never pay costs.'").
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.