AMH court cases

all 15 cases we need to know

Chisholm v Georgia FACTS

1792, Chisholm attempted to sue Georgia over payments due to him for goods that Farquhar had supplied Georgia during the Revolutionary War. Georgia refused to appear, claiming that as a sovereign state, it could not be used without consenting to the suit

Chisholm v Georgia QUESTION

Can state citizens sue state governments in federal court?

Chishom v Georgia CONCLUSION

4-1 decision. Court ruled for plaintiff, reasoning that Article 3, Sec 2 abrogated states’ sovereign immunity and granted federal courts the affirmative power to hear disputes. Thus, state conduct was subject to judicial review

Ware v Hylton FACTS

Treaty of Paris provided that creditors of both countries should “meet no lawful impediment” when recovering bona fide debts. A Virginia law passed during the American Revolution provided for the confiscation of such debts on the grounds that the debt was owed to an alien enemy. A resident of Virgina owed a debt to a British subject, and the British administrator sued in federal court to recover on the bond. The administrator argued that the Treaty of Paris ensured the collection of such debts

Ware v Hylton QUESTION

Does the Treaty of Paris override an otherwise valid state law?

Ware v Hytlon CONCLUSION

The justices held that federal courts had the power to determine the constitutionality of state laws. The Court invalidated the Virginia law under the Supremacy Clause, holding that federal treaties always take precedent over conflicting state laws

Hylton v United States FACTS

1794. Congress enacted a tax of sixteen dollars on each carriage owned by an individual or business. Hylton viewed the law as a direct tax in violation of the constitutional requirement that taxes passed by Congress must be apportioned, that is, laid according to the population and the number of representatives from each state

Hylton v United States QUESTION

Was the carriage tax a direct tax, which would require apportionment among the states?

Hylton v United States CONCLUSION

The Court concluded that the carriage tax was not a direct tax and thus that the carriage tax did not violate the Article 1, Sec 2, Clause 3 and Article 1, Sec 9, Clause 3 requirements for the apportioning of direct taxes. The Court reasoned that direct taxes did not include taxes on the possession of goods

Calder v Bull FACTS

Mr. and Mrs. Bull, the stated beneficiaries of the will of Norman Morrison, were denied an inheritance by a Connecticut probate court. When the Bulls attempted to appeal the decision more than a year and a half later, they found that a state law prohibited appeals not made within 18 months of the original ruling. The Bulls persuaded the Connecticut legislature to change the restriction, which enabled them to successfully appeal the case. Calder, the initial inheritor of Morrison’s estate, took the case to the supreme court

Calder v Bull QUESTION

Was the Connecticut legislation a violation of Article 1, Sec 10 of the Constitution, which prohibits ex post facto laws?

Calder v Bull CONCLUSION

Court held that the legislation was not an ex post facto law. Court drew a distinction between criminal rights and “private rights” arguing that restrictions against ex post facto laws were not designed to protect citizen’s contract rights. While all ex post facto laws are retrospective, all retrospective laws are not necessarily ex post facto. Even “vested” property rights are subject to retroactive laws

Marbury v Madison FACTS

Jefferson defeated Adams in the 1800 presidential election. Before Jefferson took office on March 4, 1801, Adams and COngress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which created new courts, added judges, and gave the president more control over appointment of judges. The Act was essentially an attempt by Adams and his party to frustrate his successor, as he used the act to appoint 16 new circuit judges and 42 new justices of the peace. The appointees were approved by the Senate, but they would not be valid until their commissions were delivered by the Secretary of State

Marbury had been appointed Jusitce of the Peace in DC, but his commission was not delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to compel the new Secretary of State, Madison, to deliver the documents. Marbury, joined by three other similarly situated appointees, petitioned for a writ of mandamus compelling the delivery of the commissions

Marbury v Madison QUESTIONS

1. Do the plaintiffs have a right to receive their commissions?

2. Can they use for their commissions in court?

3. Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order the delivery of their commissions?

Marbury v Madison CONCLUSION

Court found that Madison’s refusal to deliver the commission was illegal, but did not order Madison to hand over Marbury’s commission via writ of mandamus Instead, the Court held that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 enabling Marbury to bring his clim to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional, since it purported to extend the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond that which Article 3, Sec 2 established

Marshall expanded that a writ of mandamus was the proper way to seek a remedy, but concluded the Court could not issue it. Marshall reasoned that the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with the Constitution. Congress did not have the power to modify the Constitution through regular legislation because the Supremacy Clause places the Constitution before the laws

Marshall established the principle of judicial review, ie, the power to declare a law unconstitutional