Cohens v. Virginia
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821), is a landmark case by the Supreme Court of the United States that is most notable for the Court's assertion of its power to review state supreme court decisions in criminal law matters when the defendant claims that their constitutional rights have been violated.[1] The Court had previously asserted a similar jurisdiction over civil cases involving U.S. parties.
| Cohens v. Commonwealth of Virginia | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Decided March 3, 1821 | |
| Full case name | P.J. Cohen and M.J. Cohen v. Commonwealth of Virginia |
| Citations | 19 U.S. 264 (more) 6 Wheat. 264; 5 L. Ed. 257; 1821 U.S. LEXIS 362 |
| Holding | |
| State laws in opposition to federal laws are void. The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction for any U.S. case and final say. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Marshall, joined by unanimous |
The case involved a prominent Baltimore banking family, a U.S. senator and two U.S. representatives as attorneys for the opposing sides, and was centered on two defendants, Mendes J. Cohen and Philip J. Cohen, who would later rise to the positions of U.S. Postmaster (Philip), and U.S. Army Colonel and Maryland Delegate (Mendes).[2][3]
Background
Congress passed a bill to establish a National Lottery to raise money for the District of Columbia, which was conducted by the municipal government.[2] Virginia had meanwhile created its own state lotteries and passed a law to prohibit the sale of out-of-state lottery tickets.[2]
Philip and Mendes Cohen were brothers who managed the Norfolk branch of Cohens Lottery and Exchange Office of Baltimore.[2] The Cohen firm was a leading vendor of lottery tickets in the United States through its offices in New York, Philadelphia, Charleston, and Norfolk as well as nationwide through the mail.[2] The firm had a strong reputation in an otherwise-unsavory field and was known for quick payouts to winners, which led to its later success in the insurance and banking fields.[2] The firm had been established in 1821 by another brother, Jacob I. Cohen, Jr., a future president of the Baltimore City Council who had emigrated from Bavaria and brought each of his five brothers into the firm.[2][3]
On June 1, 1820, Philip and Mendes Cohen were charged by authorities in Norfolk with selling tickets for the National Lottery in Virginia.[2] The brothers were convicted in a local court and fined $100.[2]
The issue was significant as "lotteries were one of the chief means by which governments raised capital in the" early 19th century.[2] The case would challenge the "free flow of commerce" embodied in the U.S. Constitution and could have emboldened other states to challenge the sale of National Lottery tickets elsewhere.[2]
The Cohens hired two of the country's top lawyers for their appeal: U.S. Senator William Pinkney of Maryland and the recently-retired U.S. Representative David A. Ogden of New York.[2] Pinkney, an acquaintance of the Cohen family and a strong proponent of the necessary and proper clause and the doctrine of sovereign immunity, organized a public relations campaign on behalf of the federal government's powers in this case.[2]
Judicial history
The state courts found that the Virginia law prohibiting lotteries could be enforced, notwithstanding the act of Congress that authorized the D.C. lottery. The Cohens appealed to the Supreme Court and argued that their conduct was protected by the Act of Congress authorizing the D.C. lottery.
The case actually produced two Supreme Court opinions, which were published together. The first opinion, containing the major rulings of constitutional and historical significance, concerned a motion to dismiss for purported lack of Supreme Court jurisdiction. The ruling was issued on March 2, 1821. Having resolved the significant jurisdictional issues, the Court issued a relatively-unremarkable opinion the next day on the merits of the case construing a Congressional statute authorizing a lottery in the City of Washington, District of Columbia. (At the time, the District of Columbia consisted of two cities, the other being Alexandria, which was retroceded to the State of Virginia in the 1840s so that it could keep its role as a major slave market outside the federal capital.)
The main issue in the case was the preliminary issue of whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal in a criminal case decided by the courts of Virginia. It was argued by Virginia that the U.S. Constitution does not give the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over criminal judgments by the state courts. Virginia also argued that the U.S. Constitution does not give the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over cases in which a state is a party. In effect, Virginia argued that its decision was final and could not be reviews by the federal courts even though the decision involved the interpretation and application of an act of Congress. Virginia thereby asserted that it had an unreviewable right to interpret and apply federal law as it saw fit.
The Supreme Court relied on Article III, Section 2, of the U.S Constitution, which grants the Supreme Court jurisdiction in "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." The Court found that the U.S. Constitution provides no exceptions to this grant of jurisdiction for cases arising in the state courts or for cases in which a state is a party. Therefore, under its language, all cases arising under federal law are within the its grant of appellate jurisdiction. That conclusion was reinforced by the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, which makes federal law superior to state law.
The Court stated that if state court decisions involving federal law were unreviewable by the federal courts, each state could prevent the federal government from executing federal laws in that state, thus allowing each state a veto power over federal law. The Court found that to be inconsistent with the language and the intent of the U.S. Constitution, including the explicit grant of judicial power to the federal courts: "There is certainly nothing in the circumstances under which our Constitution was formed, nothing in the history of the times, which would justify the opinion that the confidence reposed in the States was so implicit as to leave in them and their tribunals the power of resisting or defeating, in the form of law, the legitimate measures of the Union." Therefore, the Constitution's framers had decided to "confer on the judicial department the power of construing the Constitution and laws of the Union in every case, in the last resort, and of preserving them from all violation from every quarter, so far as judicial decisions can preserve them."
The Court also said that unless state court decisions involving federal law could be reviewed by federal courts, there would be as many interpretations of federal law as there are states. Quoting Federalist No. 80, the Court found that the Constitution was not intended to create "a hydra in government from which nothing but contradiction and confusion can proceed." Rather, relying on Federalist No. 82, the Court found that the framers intended for the Supreme Court to have appellate jurisdiction over state court cases involving federal law.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court found no restriction or limitation on the plain language of the Constitution granting it appellate jurisdiction over all cases arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. The Court, therefore, had jurisdiction over the appeal from the Virginia courts.
Having found that it had jurisdiction, the Supreme Court upheld the Cohens' convictions. The Court found that Congress did not intend to authorize the sale of lottery tickets outside of the District of Columbia. Therefore, there was no conflict between the act of Congress authorizing a lottery there and Virginia's statute that prohibited lotteries in that state.
References
- Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821).
- Jean Edward Smith, John Marshall: Definer Of A Nation, New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1996, pp. 456-459
- Cohen, The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia
External links
- Text of Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Justia Library of Congress OpenJurist Oyez (oral argument audio)