Judicial Review Cases

Hylton v. U.S. (1796): Facts

Daniel Hylton challenged the constitutionality of a federal tax on carriages, arguing that it was a direct tax, in violation of Article I Sections 2 and 9, which require direct taxes be apportioned by state population.

Hylton v. U.S. (1796): Question

The question in this case was whether the carriage tax was a direct tax, which would require apportionment among the states?

Hylton v. U.S. (1796): Decision

The Court ruled that the tax was not a direct tax because direct taxes did not include taxes on the possession of goods. 

**Hylton v. U.S. (1796): Significance**

This case was significant because it is the first instance of judicial review, before Marbury v. Madison. The court considered the constitutionality of the act, and therefore practiced judicial review, even though it upheld the act.

Marbury v. Madison (1803): Facts

William Marbury sued Secretary of State James Madison to compel the delivery of his commission, which Madison refused to deliver and thereby prevented Marbury from becoming a Justice of the Peace in D.C. Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 allowed Marbury to seek a writ of mandamus under the Court’s original jurisdiction.

Marbury v. Madison (1803): Question #1

The first question in this case was whether Marbury had a right to the commission?

Marbury v. Madison (1803): Decision #1

 The Court ruled yes, that Marbury’s commission was signed by the President and sealed by the Secretary of State following his successful nomination and confirmation. For Madison to withhold the commission was a violation of a vested legal right.

Marbury v. Madison (1803): Question #2

The second question in this case was if the law affords Marbury a remedy for the violation of his right to the commission?

Marbury v. Madison (1803): Decision #2

The Court ruled that Marbury may sue because where there is a right, there is a remedy. He may seek a writ of mandamus to deliver the commission.

Marbury v. Madison (1803): Question #3

The third question in this case was whether a mandamus issuing from the Court was the proper remedy?

Marbury v. Madison (1803): Decision #3

The Court ruled that even though Marbury had a right to the commission and the mandamus was the proper remedy, it would be unconstitutional for the Court to issue it. Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Court the power to issue writs of mandamus but in doing so unconstitutionally expanded the Court’s original jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2. The Exceptions Clause only gives Congress the power to alter appellate jurisdiction, not original jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction can only be expanded through a constitutional amendment.

Marbury v. Madison (1803): Significance

* The Supreme Court set the precedent for judicial review, thereby expanding the power of the Court.
* The rationale for it was that the judicial power extends to all cases arising under the Constitution, and it is the duty of the Court to say what the law is.
* Further, Supreme Court justices take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Thus, if the Constitution and an ordinary piece of legislation conflict, the Court is bound to follow the Constitution. The Constitution is superior to ordinary acts of the legislature.

Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816): Facts

During the American Revolution, Virginia seized Loyalist property, including land inherited by Denny Martin. Virginia gave the plot to David Hunter, but the Treaty of Paris dictated that it belonged to Martin. Martin sued Hunter for the land. Virginia's Supreme Court said state law allowed seizure, but the U.S. Supreme Court said the treaty was supreme under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI. On remand, Virginia's Court of Appeals ruled that Section 25 of the Judiciary Act, which granted the Supreme Court appellate review over state court decisions, was unconstitutional.

Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816): Question

The question in this case was whether Section 25 was constitutional?

Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816): Decision

The Court ruled that it was under Article III, Article VI, and the spirit of the Constitution. Article III grants the Court jurisdiction to all cases arising under the constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. Article VI anticipates that cases involving the constitution, federal law, and treaties would arise in state court. In these cases, state judges are bound by the constitution and federal law as the “supreme law of the land.” Under the combination of these two articles, appellate power extends to state court cases involving federal law, and federal interpretations supersede state interpretations. This promotes uniformity of decision throughout the nation.

Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816): Significance

Martin established the Court’s ability to hear state court cases that involved matters of federal law and its authority over state courts in those decisions.

Judge Gibson’s Dissent in Eakin v. Raub (1825): Overview

John Gibson was a well-regarded judge on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. His dissent in Eakin, provides the counter-argument to judicial review. He argues that the judiciary should not settle conflicts between the Constitution and legislative acts.

Judge Gibson’s Dissent in Eakin v. Raub (1825): Arguments against Judicial Review

* It is unusual practice for the judiciary to revise acts of the legislature, and the Constitution does not enumerate this power. All officials take an oath to the Constitution, and their duty is only within the oath. The judicial oath does not permit inquiry into the legislature.
* Judicial review can also give the judiciary unlimited power when in reality the legislature and judiciary have equal right to make constructions of the Constitution. Judicial review unnecessarily creates additional collisions in government in a manner the framers did not intend. 
* The passage of legislation happens through the process outlined in the Constitution. If a piece of legislation is unconstitutional, the people can respond through elections. Errors by the legislature have a remedy while judicial errors do not.