Martin v. Hunter's Lessee 1816

AuthorDaniel Brannen, Richard Hanes, Elizabeth Shaw
Pages960-965

Page 960

Plaintiff: Thomas Bryan Martin

Defendant: David Hunter

Plaintiff's Claim: That the state of Virginia could not disobey a Supreme Court order to overturn a state law illegally taking land from citizens loyal to the British during the Revolutionary War.

Chief Lawyer for Plaintiff: Jones (first name not recorded)

Chief Lawyer for Defense: Tucker (first name not recorded)

Justices for the Court: Gabriel Duvall, William Johnson, Henry B. Livingston, Joseph Story, Thomas Todd, Bushrod Washington

Justices Dissenting: None (John Marshall did not participate)

Date of Decision: March 20, 1816

Decision: Ruled in favor of Martin by finding that United States treaties with Great Britain constitutionally take priority over conflicting state law.

Significance: The ruling was a historic statement by the Court concerning the supreme judicial review powers of the U.S. Supreme Court over state courts and state law when federal issues are involved. It provided a precedence for numerous other Court decisions involving federal government powers through the following years.

Page 961

After bitter political struggles with Great Britain over its dominating governmental policies resulting in the war for independence, many Americans opposed creating a strong new federal government. Consequently, the Articles of Confederation, written in 1781, gave the new national government few powers. The document stressed the states' sovereignty (political independence) calling the union between states "a firm league of friendship" and no more. The national government had no powers to tax or regulate commerce (business and trade) and no provisions were made for a federal court system. State courts would hear federal law cases. Each state interpreted federal law their own way leading to inconsistency and confusion with resulting financial and political chaos.

In response to the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a Constitutional Convention was called in 1787 to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. Much debate centered over how to split political power between the national government and the states. Those supporting a more even split in the power between a stronger central, or federal, government and the states were known as Federalists. Those opposed to a stronger national government and supporting continued strong state governments were simply known as anti-federalists. Ultimately, the delegates to the Convention chose a stronger central government.

Though the Constitution as written granted supremacy (higher in power) to the federal government in certain matters and established a Supreme Court, it did not precisely define the balance of power between the states and the federal government. Article VI of the Constitution proclaimed that this "constitution, and the laws of the United States . . . and all...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT