The Handy Supreme Court Answer Book. David L HudsonЧитать онлайн книгу.

      U.S. Supreme Court justice William Cushing joined his fellow justices in ruling unanimously that a U.S. treaty takes precedent over a state law. “Here is a treaty, the supreme law, which overrules all State laws,” said Cushing. Hulton Archive/Getty Images.

      The Court determined that this treaty trumped the Virginia state law. Justice Samuel Chase explained that “it is the declared duty of the State Judges to determine any Constitution, or laws of any State, contrary to that treaty (or any other) made under the authority of the United States, null and void. National or Federal Judges are bound by duty and oath to the same conduct.”

      In Ware v. Hylton and Hylton v. United States, is Hylton the same person?

      Yes, Daniel Lawrence Hylton, a prosperous Virginia merchant, is the same person who was a litigant in both famous cases. The U.S. government wanted a test case on the carriage tax law and agreed to pay all of Hylton’s legal expenses in Hylton v. United States.

      What famous person represented Hylton before the U.S. Supreme Court?

      John Marshall represented Daniel Hylton before the U.S. Supreme Court in Ware v. Hylton. Though he lost the case, five years later Marshall would become chief justice of the Court for thirty-four years and in the estimation of most historians become the Court’s greatest chief justice.

      In what case did the justices decline to review pension benefits of soldiers?

      The U.S. Supreme Court first examined this question in Hayburn’s Case (1792) and then in other cases collectively called the Invalid Pension Act cases. Congress had passed a law that provided that federal judges would review disability pension claims by soldiers and settlement claims of dead soldiers’ wives and orphans. One of these individuals was veteran William Hayburn. The law also provided that the judges’ decisions would be reviewed by the secretary of war. A group of federal judges, including five U.S. Supreme Court justices, wrote letters to President George Washington, declining the appointments because they believed it violated separation of powers principles. To the justices, it was inconsistent with separation of powers principles to have their decisions reviewed by an executive branch official.

      The three-judge circuit court for the district of New York, which included Chief Justice John Jay and Justice William Cushing, issued an opinion to President Washington, explaining their opposition to the law. “That neither the legislative nor the executive branches, can constitutionally assign to the judicial any duties, but such as are properly judicial, and to be performed in a judicial matter,” they wrote.

      The three-judge circuit court for the district of Pennsylvania, which included Justices James Wilson and John Blair, wrote a letter to President Washington. They wrote that the law was “radically inconsistent with the independence of that judicial power which is vested in the courts; and consequently, with that important principle which is so strictly observed by the constitution of the United States.”

      Finally, the two-judge circuit court for the district of North Carolina, which included Justice James Iredell, also objected to the practice by letter to President Washington. The judges noted that the law “subjects the decision of the court to a mode of revision, which we consider to be unwarranted by the constitution.” Congress responded to Hayburn’s Case by passing a new law dealing with veterans’ pensions.

      Why is Hayburn’s Case important?

      The case was important because it helped establish the principle of judicial independence: the executive and legislative branches could not place the federal courts, including U.S. Supreme Court justices, in a subservient role when it comes to interpreting the law.

      In what case did the U.S. Supreme Court assert jurisdiction over admiralty disputes involving captured ships?

      The U.S. Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Jay, ruled in Glass v. The Sloop Betsey (1794) that federal courts in the United States have jurisdiction over captured vessels taken into American ports even if the ships involved are not American. The issue arose after a French ship, the Citizen Genet, captured a Swedish vessel called the Sloop Betsey and sent the vessel into Baltimore. The French captain, Pierre Arcade Johannene, asserted that France had the right to set up its own prize court, a court specifically designed to hear admiralty disputes, in the United States to hear this dispute.

      The U.S. Supreme Court determined that “no foreign power can of right institute, or erect, any court of judicature of any kind, within the jurisdiction of the United States.” The Court also determined that “every District Court in the United States, possesses all the powers of a court of Admiralty.”

      Why is the captured ship decision important?

      The Glass v. The Sloop Betsey case is important for at least two reasons. One, it established that the Court had jurisdiction to hear admiralty and prize disputes, involving the capture and detainment of various ships and vessels. This became a source of many cases for the Court in the early years. Second, the case is perhaps even more important because it established the United States as an independent power willing to stand up to other countries, such as France, and assert itself in the international arena.