Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee – Supreme Court review of state court decisions

t Story 1816. Upheld as constitutional § 25 of 1789 Judiciary Act, which allowed SCt to hear appeals of constitutional issues decided by highest court of a state. (court reversed contrary conclusion of Virginia Court of Appeals)§

t Background. In Marbury, SCt held that it had the power to review acts of Congress for constitutionality. In Martin, SCt confronted similar, and perhaps even more important question, of whether SCt is constitutionally authorized to review the constitutionality of state court decisions.

t Virginia’s argument. This case involved the issue of whether a particular Virginia statute conflicted with a federal treaty. The Virginia courts took the position that if litigation commenced in state courts, then it was up to the state court to say whether the state action violated the federal USC, and the SCt had no right to review whatever conclusion the state court reached.

t Holding. SCt flatly rejected Virginia courts’ view, and held that the SCt could review the constitutionality of a decision by a state’s highest court. Judiciary Act §25, giving SCt appellate jurisdiction over cases pending in state courts, is supported by letter and spirit of USC.

t Components of Story’s argument: Story started by nothing that Article III, §2of USC gave SCt jurisdiction over all constitutional cases, regardless of their origin. Story relied on:

n structural argument that final judgment must reside somewere,

n consent argument that the American people granted this power,

(a) Sovereignty argumentrejected: Virginia court’s assertion that it was “sovereign” was rejected, on the grounds that the federal USC cut back upon state sovereignty in numerous respects. There was no reason to presume that state judiciaries were immune from this set of limitations.

n prudential argumentthat uniformity of decisions is important,

(a) There is a need for uniformity in decisions throughout the nation interpreting the USC: “If there were no revising authority to control these jarring and discordant judgments, and harmonize them into uniformity, the laws, the treaties and the USC would be different in different states . . .” The case, not court, gives jurisdiction. It is clear that state courts would hear cases that involve USC, federal laws, treaties, etc.

n Another prudential argumentis to prevent forum shopping.

t Evaluation Story’s opinion:

n Ubiquity of prudential argumenthere gave us opportunity to begin considering whether prudential argument is ever appropriate in constitutional law.

n Story’s deference to Congress in this opinion contrasts strikingly with Marshall’s lack of deference in Marbury.

n How important is prudential argumentin constitutional law? Why is it even appropriate?

n What does argument from uniformity imply about SCt’s role?

(a) Is it argument against the sort of departmentalism advocated by Easterbrook, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, and Lincoln?

(b) How do claims of Cooper v. Aaroncompare with those of Lincoln’s inaugural?

(c) Under Meese’s departmentalist theory, how can it be flatly claimed (as Meese does at 56) that the executive branch is bound to enforce a court order? If uniformity in decision is important here, why doesn’t it justify the dictum in Cooper v. Aaron?

Date: 2015-01-02; view: 1252