The Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee case is a Supreme Court case from 1816 that challenged appellate jurisdiction over state court decisions, specifically, the ability of the Supreme Court to hear and decide state cases where state court’s decided cases based on federal law. A British loyalist, Lord Fairfax, owned land in Virginia during the Revolutionary War when Virginia seized the land and gave a tract of it to David Hunter. Following the war, the United States entered into a treaty with Great Britain guaranteeing protection of lands owned by British loyalists. Once Lord Fairfax died and his land ownership passed to his heir, Thomas Martin, he sought to recover the land and sued. The Virginia court ruled that Fairfax and Martin were the owners of the land but upon appeal to the state appellate court, it was reversed in favor of Hunter. Martin appealed to the Supreme Court who decided for Martin pursuant to the treaty.
The issue that went before the court was if the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear cases on appeal from state courts deciding cases on federal law. In a more simplistic view, the senior government developed rules for the country while states developed rules for their states and when the two were in conflict, which rules had precedent. In answering this question, the court ruled that both court had to use the guiding principles of the constitution when deciding cases and that federal law trumped state law which, basically, has jurisdiction over the entire country while state laws only covered those people and issues within its state boundaries. If the Supreme Court could not review state decisions on federal law, then the state courts would be excluded from hearing cases involving questions of federal law. Justice Joseph Story wrote the Court’s opinion since Justice John Marshall recused himself for financial reasons, he was in a purchase agreement to buy the disputed land at the time. States did not and could not have the power to interpret the Constitution and create their independence from the federal government, so under Article III of the Constitution, it gives the right to the Supreme Court to review state decisions of federal laws. This decision established the primacy of the federal judiciary over state courts on questions of federal law, while further weakening the state’s government and power. The Ex parte McCardle is a 1868 Supreme Court case involving the filing of a habeas corpus writ by McCardle, a Mississippi newspaper editor. After the Civil War, congress imposed military government on many former Confederate States by authority of the Civil War Reconstruction Acts. After McCardle was imprisoned for publishing libelous and inflammatory articles, he filed a habeas corpus writ claiming Congress lacked the authority to establish a system of military government. The Act authorized federal courts to grant habeas corpus to persons held in violation of their constitutional rights and granted the Supreme Court the authority to hear appeals. However, the circuit court denied McCardle’s habeas corpus writ but the Supreme Court sustained jurisdiction and heard arguments. Congress passed an act in 1868 that repealed the portion of the 1867 Act that allowed the Supreme Court jurisdiction, past or present.11 This, in effect, limited the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear habeas corpus cases due to Congressional authority to revise Acts but more importantly, to make the retroactive to cases already heard or before …show more content…
The Court flatly declared that the “Constitution does not speak of freedom of contract” and that such a freedom is thus “a qualified, and not an absolute, right” under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court argued that while the Fourteenth Amendment bans arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty, and property by the state (or protects “procedural” due process, e.g., a right to a fair trial), it does not prohibit the states’ ability to “reasonably” regulate the terms of certain activities for the public good.17 They also ruled that setting the minimum wage was lawful by the state in that it was reasonable and not arbitrary to protect the health and welfare of workers. So the setting of a minimum wage meant that a guaranteed minimum would be paid and the employee was free to negotiate for higher wages if they so
The issue that went before the court was if the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear cases on appeal from state courts deciding cases on federal law. In a more simplistic view, the senior government developed rules for the country while states developed rules for their states and when the two were in conflict, which rules had precedent. In answering this question, the court ruled that both court had to use the guiding principles of the constitution when deciding cases and that federal law trumped state law which, basically, has jurisdiction over the entire country while state laws only covered those people and issues within its state boundaries. If the Supreme Court could not review state decisions on federal law, then the state courts would be excluded from hearing cases involving questions of federal law. Justice Joseph Story wrote the Court’s opinion since Justice John Marshall recused himself for financial reasons, he was in a purchase agreement to buy the disputed land at the time. States did not and could not have the power to interpret the Constitution and create their independence from the federal government, so under Article III of the Constitution, it gives the right to the Supreme Court to review state decisions of federal laws. This decision established the primacy of the federal judiciary over state courts on questions of federal law, while further weakening the state’s government and power. The Ex parte McCardle is a 1868 Supreme Court case involving the filing of a habeas corpus writ by McCardle, a Mississippi newspaper editor. After the Civil War, congress imposed military government on many former Confederate States by authority of the Civil War Reconstruction Acts. After McCardle was imprisoned for publishing libelous and inflammatory articles, he filed a habeas corpus writ claiming Congress lacked the authority to establish a system of military government. The Act authorized federal courts to grant habeas corpus to persons held in violation of their constitutional rights and granted the Supreme Court the authority to hear appeals. However, the circuit court denied McCardle’s habeas corpus writ but the Supreme Court sustained jurisdiction and heard arguments. Congress passed an act in 1868 that repealed the portion of the 1867 Act that allowed the Supreme Court jurisdiction, past or present.11 This, in effect, limited the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear habeas corpus cases due to Congressional authority to revise Acts but more importantly, to make the retroactive to cases already heard or before …show more content…
The Court flatly declared that the “Constitution does not speak of freedom of contract” and that such a freedom is thus “a qualified, and not an absolute, right” under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court argued that while the Fourteenth Amendment bans arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty, and property by the state (or protects “procedural” due process, e.g., a right to a fair trial), it does not prohibit the states’ ability to “reasonably” regulate the terms of certain activities for the public good.17 They also ruled that setting the minimum wage was lawful by the state in that it was reasonable and not arbitrary to protect the health and welfare of workers. So the setting of a minimum wage meant that a guaranteed minimum would be paid and the employee was free to negotiate for higher wages if they so