Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. (14 U.S.) 304 (1816), argued 12 Mar. 1816, decided 20 Mar. 1816 by vote of 6 to 0; Story for the Court, Marshall not participating. This case involved the constitutionality of section 25 of the 1789 Judiciary Act, which empowered the Supreme Court to review the final judgments of the highest
state courts where federal statutes or treaties were involved, or when a state statute or common law rule had been upheld, though challenged under the federal Constitution. Several states, most notably Virginia, condemned section 25 as an unconstitutional authorization for the federal judiciary to usurp state power. States' rights advocates believed that the Union rested on a compact among the states that granted the central government only limited and enumerated powers (see
State Sovereignty and States' Rights).
During the War for American Independence, Virginia enacted legislation confiscating Loyalists' property. Thomas Lord Fairfax, a Loyalist, subsequently devised his vast holdings in the Northern Neck to a British subject, but the property had passed into private hands because of the confiscatory statute. The Fairfax interests challenged the Virginia legislation as inconsistent with the state's obligations under the Treaty of Paris (1783) and Jay's Treaty (1794), which protected Loyalist holdings. In
Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee (1813), Justice Joseph
Story sustained the Fairfax interests. (Chief Justice John
Marshall did not participate because of pecuniary interest and prior involvement as counsel.) Story's decision fueled already intense criticism of the Court. States' rights advocates, such as Spencer Roane and Thomas Ritchie, claimed that Story had reduced the states to mere administrative units lacking real sovereignty. The Virginia judiciary refused to enter judgment in favor of Fairfax, effectively denying the validity of section 25 of the 1789 Judiciary Act. The Virginia judges stated that they were under no obligation to obey the Supreme Court.
Virginia's intransigence brought the dispute back to the Supreme Court, this time as
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee. Marshall again recused himself, although he played an important behind‐the‐scenes role. The Chief Justice framed the writ of
error that brought the case to the Court and consulted extensively with Joseph Story, who again wrote the Court's opinion.
Story's opinion, the most important of his thirty‐four years on the Court, rebuked Virginia for failing to comply with the Court's previous order. Story rejected the compact theory and Virginia's claim that it was equally sovereign with the United States. The American people, Story argued, had created the nation and lodged the national judicial power exclusively in the federal courts. Story sustained section 25 of the 1789 act and insisted that the power to interpret the Constitution had to rest with one ultimate source of authority, which was the United States Supreme Court. He also noted that the national government possessed certain
implied powers, a position that Marshall adopted three years later in upholding the Bank of the United States in
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).
Story's opinion was a landmark in the history of federal judicial supremacy. More than even Marshall, Story upheld federal judicial supremacy over the states. Without Story's decision, the Supremacy Clause of the federal Constitution would have lost much of its salience, since the states would not have been bound to conform their laws to a national constitutional standard.
See also
Judicial Power and Jurisdiction;
Judicial Review.
Bibliography
G. Edward White , History of the Supreme Court of the United States, vols. 3–4, The Marshall Court and Cultural Change, 1815–35 (1988).
Kermit L. Hall
