Facebook
Home Supreme Court Page 3

Supreme Court

Facts About the State Court of New York

Facts About the State Court of New York

New York State Court Defined:

As is common in all 50 states in America, the head of the executive branch of the local government of New York is the Governor of the state.

New York consists of a legislative branch, referred to as the legislature, which consists of a Senate and an Assembly. Dissimilar to most states; however, New York law permits electoral fusions, which allows for the presentation of New York ballots to reveal a larger number of parties.

The court system in New York typically tends to produce an assortment of confusion for those associated with other states. As is found in Maryland and Washington D.C., the highest court in New York is referred to as the ‘Court of Appeals’ and not the ‘Supreme Court.’

Instead of the trial court being referred to as the “Superior Court,” the New York court system labels the trial court as the “Supreme Court.”

Historically speaking, county superior courts, like New York’s county supreme courts, were viewed as the highest level of trial court; these court systems oversee a network of inferior trial courts, for example various recorder’s courts, courts of referees and commissioners, and municipal courts.

The state court of New York’s intermediate appellate court (the court system between the New York State Supreme Courts and the New York Court of Appeals) is referred to as the New York State Supreme Court-Appellate Division. Local courts in towns and villages of the state are called Justice Courts; these courts are the starting point for all criminal cases that occur in outside cities; this court system handles a variety of other matters including traffic ticket cases, small claims hearings and issues pertaining to zoning.

William Johnson

William Johnson

Supreme Court Judge: William Johnson
William Johnson was a Supreme Court Justice from 1804 to 1834 as well as a state legislator and a judge in South Carolina. He was born in Charleston. He later studied law at Princeton, where he graduated in 1790 with an A.B. He read law in the Charles Cotesworth Pinckney’s office, and then passed the bar in 1793. 
William Johnson was nominated for the position of Associate Justice on March 22, 1804 by Thomas Jefferson and was confirmed by the Senate on March 24, 1804, where he received his commission two days later. William Johnson was the first of Jefferson’s appointments to the Supreme Court, and was thought have the most similar beliefs about the Constitution. As a Justice, William Johnson was a very independent mind. While John Marshal, the Chief Justice had an ability to direct the opinions of many of the justices, Johnson became known for often dissenting.
Famous Cases
Fletcher v. Peck (1810): A landmark Supreme Court decision where for the first time Court ruled a state law unconstitutional. This action helped start and create a precedent for the sanctity and importance of legal contracts, and implied that Native Americans did not actually hold title to their own lands. The case resulted in the Supreme Court, as well as Justice William Johnson, reaching a unanimous decision that ruled that the repeal by the state legislature of the law was not valid because of the unconstitutionality of the law.
The opinion of the court, which was written by John Marshall, stated that a sale was a binding contract and could not be invalidated even if the contract was illegally secured, in accordance to the Contract Clause, or Article I, Section 10, Clause I of the Constitution. This case resulted in the Court asserting its judicial right to invalidate a state law which was in conflict with the Constitution.  In the concurrence written by Justice William Johnson, he wrote that while he did not hesitate in declaring that the state law was unconstitutional, he did so because of the nature of the case, specifically because the law imposed on the deity. 
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): A landmark Supreme Court decision which established two principles. The first was that the Constitution gave Congress the implied powers to implement their will in order to make a functional national government. The second was that these powers and actions could not impede on any constitutional exercises of power performed by the federal government. This case resulted from an event where the state of Maryland tried to impede the operation of the Second Bank of the U.S. by placing a tax on all bank notes not chartered within the state.
While the law was generally applicable to all banks which were not chartered in Maryland, this particular bank was the only one existing in the state that was an out-of-state bank, meaning that the law specifically targeted this U.S. Bank. As a result, the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court, which included the opinion of William Johnson, invoked the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause, allowing the Federal government to pass laws that were not explicitly given in the Constitution’s list of express powers for Congress, as long as the laws were in could further the  Congress’ powers under the Constitution. 

John Jay

John Jay

Supreme Court Justice: John Jay
John was an American politician, revolutionary, diplomat, statesman, Founding Father, and the very first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1789 to 1795.
John Jay also served as the President of the Continental Congress between 1778 and 1779. John Jay was a minister to both Spain and France during and after the American Revolution, where he helped design United States foreign policy, and worked to secure favorable terms of peace from Great Britain through Jay’s Treaty of 1794 as well as favorable terms of peace with the First French Republic. John Jay, along with James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, co-wrote the Federalist Papers.
As a member and leader of the new Federalist Party, John Jay acted as the Governor of New York State between 1795 and 1801, and he also became the state’s strongest opponent of slavery. His first two attempts in 1777 and 1785 to emancipate the slaves in New York failed, but his third attempt in 1799 succeeded. The success in 1799 of the gradual emancipation act that John Jay signed into law ultimately brought about the emancipation of the New York slaves before Jay’s death in 1829.
John Jay was born in New York City on December 12, 1745 as the sixth son and the eighth child in his family. Jay was raised in Rye, New York, and had the same political opinions as his father, who was a very strong Whig. Jay was educated in Rye by private tutors until the age of eight, when he was then sent to New Rochelle where he studied under Anglican pastor Pierre Stoupe. After three years, jay returned to his homeschooling under the instruction of George Murray. In 1760, Jay went on to continue his education at King’s College, where he graduated four years later and took on the role of a law clerk for Benjamin Kissam.
After reading law getting admitted to the New York bar in 1768, Jay worked at a legal practice created by Robert Livingston using government money, until 1771, where he established his own law office. Jay’s first public role was the secretary to the committee of correspondence of New York, where Jay represented the conservative group that was looking to protecting property rights and preserve the rule of law while resisting the “British violations” American rights. This group of individuals feared the idea of “mob rule”. Jay believed the British tax measures that were placed were wrong and that Americans were legally and morally justified in resisting these taxes.
However, as a delegate in 1774 to the First Continental Congress, Jay sided with individuals who wished for conciliation with Parliament. Events like the burning of Norfolk, Virginia, in January 1776 pushed John Jay to support independence for America. After the American Revolutionary War broke out, Jay tirelessly worked for the revolutionary cause and fought to suppress the Loyalists, making Jay into first a moderate and then later a strong Patriot after he decided that the colonies’ efforts aimed towards reconciliation with Britain were completely fruitless and that the fight for independence which ultimately became the American Revolution was inevitable.
In September 1789, President George Washington offered John Jay the position of Secretary of State, but Jay declined. President Washington responded to this by offering Jay the position of the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, which he accepted. Jay was officially nominated by Washington on September 24, 1789, which was the same day that Washington signed the Judiciary Act of 1789 into law, which created the Chief Justice position.  On September 26, 1789Jay was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate, and he received his commission on the same day. Jay’s term began on October 19, 1789 with his taking his oath of office. President Washington also nominated William Cushing, John Blair, James Iredell, John Rutledge, and James Wilson as Associate Judges.
The business of the Supreme Court through the first three years mainly involved the establishment and application of rules and procedure, such as the admission of attorneys to the bar and reading of commissions. The Justices’ also had duties in riding circuit, or presiding over various cases in the different circuit courts of the many federal judicial districts.
There was no convention at the time that precluded the involvement of the Justices from political affairs, so Jay used his mild workload as a Justice as a way to freely participate in the business of President Washington’s administration. Jay also used his circuit riding to spread information throughout the states about Washington’s commitment to neutrality for the county, and then he published reports of the French minister’s, Edmond-Charles Genet, campaign to win the American support for France.
However, John Jay also created an early precedent for the independence of the Supreme Court in 1790, when the Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton wrote to Jay asking for the Supreme Court’s endorsement of a piece of legislation that could assume the debts of the states. John Jay replied that the Supreme Court’s business was restricted just to ruling on the constitutionality of court cases being tried before it and because of this, he refused to allow the court to take a position regarding the legislation.
Famous Cases
Van Staphorst v. Maryland (1791): The first court case docketed with the Supreme Court of the United States. While the Supreme Court agreed to hear and decide on this case, the law suit was settled before oral arguments could begin in Court. In this Supreme Court case, the Van Staphorst brothers gave money to the State of Maryland as a loan during the Revolutionary War era. Afterwards, the State of Maryland refused to pay back the loans to the Van Staphorst brothers in accordance to the terms that were set by the Van Staphorst brothers. After the threat of having to undergo Supreme Court litigation, both parties finally settled the court case with each other.
West v. Barnes (1791): The first decision made by the United States Supreme Court and the first Supreme Court case which called for oral arguments. Prior to this, the case Van Staphorst v. Maryland was docketed, but that case was settled before the Supreme Court could hear the case. West v. Barnes was argued in front of the Court on August 2, 1791 and it was decided upon on August 3, 1791.
William West was a revolutionary war militia general, farmer, a judge from Scituate, Rhode Island, and an anti-federalist leader. Due to a failed molasses deal to the Jenckes family from Providence in 1763, he owed a mortgage on his farm. William West made payments for twenty years on the mortgage, and then asked the state for permission to set up and run a lottery in 1785 in order to help pay off the rest. Because of West’s services during the Revolution, the state of Rhode Island granted him the permission to do so. Many of the proceeds were not paid in gold or silver, but instead were paid in paper currency. William West tendered the payment in the paper currency which was allowed according to the statute by since he was lodging the money with a state judge, which would be collected within 10 days.
David Leonard Barnes, a well-known attorney and an heir of the Jenckes family, eventually brought forward a lawsuit in a federal court based on the diversity jurisdiction which asserted that silver or gold payment was needed, rather than the paper currency. Despite the lack of formal legal training, William West represented himself pro se in June 1791 in the circuit court before Chief Justice John Jay and two other justices. All of them rejected his arguments. West then tried to appeal the case to the Supreme Court on a writ of error, in an attempt to comply with all of the statutory directions. William West was not able to travel to Philadelphia to represent himself in the suit, so he hired Pennsylvania’s attorney general, William Bradford, Jr., to represent him.
On the appeal, David Barnes examined the procedural irregularities of the case. He asserted that the writ had been only signed and sealed circuit court clerk in Rhode Island rather than the Supreme Court clerk, which he said was necessary. William West lost the case due to this procedural issue and eventually was forced to surrender his farm. The Supreme Court held that a writ of error needed to be issued within ten days by the Supreme Court Clerk as required by the Federal statute, rather than a lower court’s clerk. As a result, Congress ultimately modified this procedure with the section nine of the Judicial Act of 1792, which allowed circuit courts to issue writs, helping citizens who lived far away from the capitol.
This Supreme Court case was one of the earliest potential ones that could have allowed judicial review in the United States. In this case, the Supreme Court had the chance to overturn a statute enacted by Rhode Island State which discussed fulfilling a contract through lodging the payment a debt by using paper currency. However, the Supreme Court did not exercise any judicial review in respect to the legislature.
Hayburn’s Case (1792): A Supreme Court case where the court was invited to make a decision on whether Congress could assign certain non-judicial duties to the federal circuit courts which were in their official capacity. This case was the first time the Supreme Court looked at the issue of justifiability. Eventually, Congress reassigned the duties in question, and the Court did not have to give judgment in this case. At the time of the case, each of the Supreme Court Justices also served on a Circuit Court. Due to the fact, five of the six Justices including Justice John Jay declared it to be unconstitutional as judges in the District Courts.
Chisholm v. Georgia (1793): A Supreme Court case that was considered the first Supreme Court case of impact and significance. Because of the date, there is very little legal precedent available. The case was superseded almost immediately by the 11th Amendment. In South Carolina in 1792, Alexander Chisholm, who was the executor of the Robert Farquhar’s estate, tried to sue Georgia State in the Supreme Court regarding payments for goods that were owned by Farquhar from the American Revolutionary War. General Edmund Randolph, the U.S. Attorney, argued on behalf of the plaintiff. Meanwhile, Georgia refused to appear as the defendant, claiming that it could not be sued as a sovereign state without granting consent to the suit.
The Court, including Chief Justice John Jay, decided in a 4 to 1 vote in favor of the plaintiff. The justices argued that Article III, Section II, of the Constitution rescinded the sovereign immunity of the states and gave federal courts the power to hear disputes between States and private citizens. Because of the case, the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution was ratified in 1795. Doing so removed federal jurisdiction in situations where citizens of a specific state tried to sue another state. However, a citizen of one state still had the power to sue the Federal courts if the state consented to the suit or if Congress abrogated the immunity of the state under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Georgia v. Brailsford (1794): A Supreme Court case where the judge presiding over the Court instructed the jury that they had the right to judge not only the law, but also the facts. This case is often thought of as the precedent of jury nullification. Chief Justice John Jay explained the opinion, which explicitly acknowledged jury nullification by saying that juries were the best judges of facts while courts were the best judges of law, but it still allowed juries to look at both parts to make a decision. Justice John Jay considered this case to be extremely importance. Because of this it was treated by the Supreme Court justices with great diligence, ability, and learning. While the facts understood in the case were agreed upon, the only real issue was deciding what the law of the land was coming out of the facts and whether it was proper for the Supreme Court to give that opinion.

Who is in Barack Obama’s Supreme Court?

Who is in Barack Obama's Supreme Court?

Barack Obama’s supreme court


There are a number of similarities that can be found among the current Supreme Court Justices. The only member of Barack Obama’s Supreme Court who did not serve as a judge is Justice Elena Kagan. Justice Clarence Tomas and Justice Sonia Sotomayor are the only members of Barack Obama’s Supreme Court who have not served as professors at law schools.

Chief Justice John Roberts


Chief Justice John Roberts was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2005 by President George W. Bush. John G. Roberts graduated from Harvard Law School. He served as a Judge on the D.C. Circuit Court. Before becoming Chief Justice, John Roberts had previously been nominated to serve as an Associate justice.

Justice Antonin Scalia


Justice Antonin Scalia is the longest service Supreme Court Justice. Justice Scalia was appointed to the Court in 1986 by Ronald Reagan. Justice Antonin Scalia served on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Justice Scalia graduated from Harvard Law School.


Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1988.  Justice Anthony Kennedy earned his Bachelor of Laws from Harvard Law School. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy has continued to serve as a Professor of Constitutional Law at the McGeorge School of Law intermittently since 1965.


Justice Clarence Thomas
Justice Clarence Thomas is near the top of the list of Supreme Court justices who have attracted the highest degree of controversy, in Justice Thomas’s case due to allegations of sexual misconduct. Justice Clarence was appointed to the Supreme Court by President George H.W. Bush in 1991, after earning his degree from Yale Law School.

Justice ruth bader ginsburg


Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the oldest member of the Supreme Court. Justice Ginsburg was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton in 1993. She attended Harvard Law School, but earned her Bachelor of Laws from Columbia Law School, and was granted honorary Doctors of Laws degrees from Willamette University and Princeton University.
Justice Stephen Breyer


Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton in 1994. He earned a Bachelor of Laws Degree from Harvard Law School. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer had previous experience as a judge due to his service on the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, including four years as Chief Judge.


Justice Samuel Alito


Justice Samuel Alito was appointed to the Court by President George W. Bush. Samuel A. Alito, Jr. graduated from Yale Law School. Samuel Alito stated in his college yearbook that he would “eventually warm a seat on the Supreme Court.” Samuel A. Alito, Jr. faced a controversial nomination process.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor


Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s biography reveals a varied life experience. Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s biography indicates when nominated to a position on a lower court her nomination was delayed into the following calendar year, 1991 into 1992 when President George H.W. Bush appointed her to the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, and 1997 into 1998 when nominated for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit by President Clinton. Her appointment to the Supreme Court by President Obama in 2009 did not face such a delay.

Justice Elena Kagan


Justice Elena Kagan developed her legal experience as a law professor. Justice Elena Kagan earned her Law degree from Harvard Law School, where she would later become the dean. She was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Obama in 2010. 

A Short Biography on Justice Stephen Breyer

A Short Biography on Justice Stephen Breyer

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1994. He is considered a liberal pragmatist.
Stephen Breyer was born August 15, 1938 in San Fransisco, California. He graduated from Lowell High School in 1955, before completing a B.A. degree in philosophy from Stanford University, and going on to become a Marshall Scholar at Magdalen College at Oxford University. He also earned a Bachelor of Laws Degree from Harvard Law School.
After completing his schooling, Stephen Breyer completed a clerkship with Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg. He then became a law professor and Lecturer at Harvard Law School beginning in 1967. He also wrote a series of prominent textbooks on administrative laws which are still in use. 
He served as a Special Assistant to the United States Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust and assistant Special Prosecutor on the Watergate Special Prosecution Force in 1973. In 1980, he was appointed Circuit Judge to the Court Appeals for the First Circuit, and in 1990 was appointed Chief Judge of the First Circuit. He served as Chief Judge for four years, until President Clinton nominated him to serve on the Supreme Court. 

A Short Biography on Justice Elena Kagan

A Short Biography on Justice Elena Kagan

Elena Kagan was President Barack Obama’s second nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States. She is the only member of the current Supreme Court who does not have prior experience as a judge.
Elena Kagan was born on April 28, 1960 in New York City. She graduated from Princeton University, where she graduated summa cum laude with a B.A. in History. While at Princeton she served as one of the editorial chairs of the Daily Princetonian. After graduation, Elena Kagan earned Princeton University’s Daniel M. Sachs Class of 1960 Graduating Scholarship. 
This scholarship permitted her to attend Worcester College at Oxford University. She earned a master of philosophy on 1983, and went on to earn a magna cum laude Juris Doctor degree from Harvard Law School in 1986. While there, Elena Kagan served as supervisory editor of the Harvard Law Review. While serving in that capacity, she was noted for her ability to navigate the politically charged and divided law school with ease.
After graduation, she served as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School from 1991 to 1995. She was then tapped to serve as Associate White House Counsel and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council from 1995 through 1999 in the Clinton Administration. 
After leaving the Clinton Administration she returned to Harvard Law School as a professor for four years, before becoming the dean of Harvard Law School from 2003-2009. She served fourteen months as the Solicitor General of the United States under the Obama Administration. In May 2010, President Obama nominated her to the Supreme Court of the United States, a position for which she was approved by a margin of sixty three to thirty seven.

Facts About the State Court of Oklahoma

Facts About the State Court of Oklahoma

State Court Oklahoma Explained:

The government system of the US State of Oklahoma is established and administered through the Oklahoma Constitution. The State government of Oklahoma is a republican democracy that is modeled after the Federal government of the United States.

Oklahoma’s state government possesses three branches: the legislative branch, the judicial branch and the executive branch. Through a distinct system of separation of powers (also known as checks and balances) each of these branches possesses a distinct amount of authority to act on its own. Some authority, through this system, is used to regulate other branches, and in turn, some of the authority is distributed to each specific branch.

The state government of Oklahoma is based in the capital city of Oklahoma City and the head of the executive branch is the Governor of Oklahoma. The legislative branch of the state is referred to as the Legislature, which consists of the Oklahoma Senate and the Oklahoma House of Representatives. The Oklahoma Supreme Court and the State’s Court of Criminal Appeals are Oklahoma’s highest court systems—both operated in the judicial branch of government.

The State court of Oklahoma is located within the judicial system of the state. The judicial branch of Oklahoma interprets the Oklahoma law and constitution; it is headed by the Supreme Court.

The judiciary branch consists of two courts of last resort, courts of limited jurisdiction, and courts of general jurisdiction. Additionally, the Oklahoma judiciary contains two independent courts.

 All judges and justices who operate in the judicial branch require appointment made by the Governor. Candidates within the branch must first go through a nominating process administered by the Oklahoma Judicial Nominating Commission. This board selects three candidates to submit to the Governor for a single selection to the office.

Facts About the State Court of Pennsylvania

Facts About the State Court of Pennsylvania

State Court of Pennsylvania
The State court system of Pennsylvania is governed and maintained based on the interpretation of the State’s constitution. Specifically; however, the State court system of Pennsylvania is regulated and administered through the state government’s Judiciary system.
Pennsylvania’s Judiciary branch is divided into 60 judicial districts. The majority of these circuits, with the exception of Philadelphia, possess magisterial district judges (formerly referred to as district justices and justices of the peace). These individuals typically preside over preliminary hearings in misdemeanor as well as felony trials. All minor, meaning summary, criminal offenses and civil claims are administered and heard by this court system.
The majority of criminal and civil cases originate in the Courts of Common Pleas. This state court of Pennsylvania also serves as the appellate court to the underlying and respective district judges and for all local agency decisions.
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania hears all appeals from the Courts of Common Pleas that are not expressly designated to the Commonwealth Court or the Supreme Court. The Superior Court also possesses original jurisdictional powers to review warrants for wiretap surveillance.
The Commonwealth Court system is limited to appeals from final orders of certain state agencies and certain designated cases from the Courts of Common Pleas. The Supreme Court of the state of Pennsylvania is the final appellate court in the judicial system. All judges in Pennsylvania are elected and the chief justice is determined through seniority. 

Facts About the State Court of Texas

Facts About the State Court of Texas

State Court Texas Defined:

The state government of Texas consists of a state government, as well as an assortment of local governments found at the county and municipal levels. 

The State court system of Texas is regulated and administered through the judicial branch of government. The judicial system of the state of Texas possesses a very complex structure; the Texas judiciary system is often regarded as the most complex local court system in the United States, for it possesses many layers and an assortment of overlapping jurisdictions. 

The State Court Texas contains two courts of last resort: the Texas Supreme Court, which hears and administers decisions concerning civil cases and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which hears and administers decisions concerning criminal suits.

Partisan elections are used to choose all of the judges found at all levels of the judiciary, with exception of various municipal benches, which typically appoint judges. The governor of Texas is responsible for filling vacancies by appointment to those areas of the judicial branch that require it. 

All members of the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals are elected based on a statewide nomination. Since 1994, all 18 seats (nine on each court) have been held by a member of the Republican Party. 

Similar to many other states, the State court of Texas contains numerous localized courts that are realized through jurisdictional boundaries.  If you need legal advice and assistance, contact Texas lawyers.

James Wilson

James Wilson

Supreme Court Justice: James Wilson
James Wilson was one of the original six justices appointed to the Supreme Court by George Washington. He was also one of the United States’ Founding Fathers, member of the Continental Congress, and a signer of the Declaration of Independence.  James Wilson was born on September 14, 1742 in Scotland and attended many Scottish universities without ever getting a degree. Wilson later moved to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1766 and began teaching at The Academy and College of Philadelphia. He soon began reading law at John Dickinson’s and attained the bar two years later.
James Wilson was nominated on September 24, 1789 for the role of an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court by George Washington, after the court began the 1789 Judiciary Act. Wilson was then was confirmed by the Senate on September 26, 1789, and received his commission three days later. Wilson only heard nine cases between his appointment in 1789 and his death nine years later.
As one of the first American legal philosophers, James Wilson thought through in great detail some of the thinking recommended in the decisions issuing around that time in the Supreme Court. Wilson felt particularly compelled to spend time arguing out the reasons and justification behind the decisions made in the court.
Famous Cases
Hayburn’s Case (1792): A Supreme Court case where the court was invited to make a decision on whether Congress could assign certain non-judicial duties to the federal circuit courts which were in their official capacity. This case was the first time the Supreme Court looked at the issue of justifiability. Eventually, Congress reassigned the duties in question, and the Court did not have to give judgment in this case. At the time of the case, each of the Supreme Court Justices also served on a Circuit Court. Due to the fact, five of the six Justices including James Wilson declared it to be unconstitutional as judges in the District Courts.
Chisholm v. Georgia (1793): A Supreme Court case that was considered the first Supreme Court case of impact and significance. Because of the date, there is very little legal precedent available. The case was superseded almost immediately by the Eleventh Amendment. In South Carolina in 1792, Alexander Chisholm, who was the executor of the Robert Farquhar’s estate, tried to sue Georgia State in the Supreme Court regarding payments for goods that were owned by Farquhar from the American Revolutionary War. General Edmund Randolph, the U.S. Attorney, argued on behalf of the plaintiff. Meanwhile, Georgia refused to appear as the defendant, claiming that it could not be sued as a sovereign state without granting consent to the suit.
The Court, including Justice James Wilson, decided in a 4 to 1 vote in favor of the plaintiff. The justices argued that Article III, Section II, of the Constitution rescinded the sovereign immunity of the states and gave federal courts the power to hear disputes between States and private citizens. Because of the case, the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution was ratified in 1795. Doing so removed federal jurisdiction in situations where citizens of a specific state tried to sue another state. However, a citizen of one state still had the power to sue the Federal courts if the state consented to the suit or if Congress abrogated the immunity of the state under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Georgia v. Brailsford (1794): A Supreme Court case where the judge presiding over the Court instructed the jury that they had the right to judge not only the law, but also the facts. This case is often thought of as the precedent of jury nullification. The Chief Justice explained the opinion, which was supported by James Wilson, which explicitly acknowledged jury nullification by saying that juries were the best judges of facts while courts were the best judges of law, but it still allowed juries to look at both parts to make a decision.
 
Hylton v. United States (1796): A U.S. Supreme Court case where the Court stated that a tax placed on carriages did not violate Article I, Section 9’s rule for the apportioning of direct taxes. The decision stated that the carriage tax was actually an excise tax instead of a direct tax, which required apportionment by population among the states. The Supreme Court also noted that a tax placed on land was a type of direct tax contemplated by the U.S. Constitution.
The case was significant because it was the first case heard Supreme Court that challenged the constitutionality of an act performed by of Congress. By holding up the tax, the Court exercised its power of judicial review, although the court refrained from overturning the statute. Rather than issuing a single opinion, the Justices issued their own analysis, but all of them including that of James Wilson still held the same position.
Calder v. Bull (1798): A Supreme Court case where the Court examined whether the court had the authority to review legislative decisions made by the state. The legislature of Connecticut demanded a new trial in a court regarding the contents of a will, which overruled the previous court ruling. In a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court which included James Wilson, the Supreme Court held that the Connecticut legislature’s actions were not in violation of the ex post facto law found in Constitution under Article I Section 10. This holding is still valid today and states that the ex post facto provision found in the Constitution applies only to criminal cases and not civil cases.
New York v. Connecticut (1799): A case heard by the Supreme Court that involved the State of New York and the State of Connecticut which came out of a land dispute between two private parties. This case with the first where the Supreme Court exercised its power of original jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution in order to hear the controversy between the two states. The land dispute involved a strip of land on the western border of New York bordering Pennsylvania which Connecticut claimed jurisdiction over and in turn granted the land to two private parties.
After New York granted certain parcels within the region to other private parties, the successors in title filed an action. The Court denied a motion to remove the suit from the Circuit Court, and New York then filed a bill in equity against the State of Connecticut. However, since the bill in equity was filed when the General Assembly of Connecticut was out of session, the state did not participate in the case. However, the claimants’ attorneys argued that no reasonable notice was given for the injunction to be allowed and that New York did not have an interest in the proceedings that deserved a stay. Justice James Wilson and the majority opinion of the Supreme Court found the notice to be sufficient, but denied the injunction, since New York lacked standing.
1234...6Page 3 of 6
Facebook

EVEN MORE NEWS

POPULAR CATEGORY

©

Attorneys, Get Listed

Free Coupon
X