Ableman v. Booth

Supreme Court of Wisconsin · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsAppellate JurisdictionState CourtsFederal SupremacyArticle IIIsection 25Judiciary Act of 1789state court review

Facts

The Supreme Court of the United States had reviewed and reversed two prior Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions involving Sherman M. Booth and remanded them with mandates directing further proceedings consistent with its opinion. In the first case, a writ of error had been served on the clerk of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, allowed by the late chief justice, and returned under his direction. In the second case, the clerk was verbally and later formally ordered by this court not to make a return to the writ of error. On the present motions, the federal district attorney asked leave to file the mandates, and no argument was made beyond the written motions.

Issue

Does the Constitution of the United States confer on Congress the power to provide by law for an appeal from the courts of the several states to the Supreme Court of the United States, and to authorize that Court to review and reverse state-court judgments in the cases specified in section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789?

Rule

Article III's grant that the judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States authorizes appellate review by the Supreme Court of the United States of state-court judgments in such cases, and Congress may, under the Necessary and Proper Clause, regulate and provide that review through section 25 of the Judiciary Act.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, Maya Reed sues Daniel Voss in state court over a contract. Daniel argues as a defense that a federal statute gives him immunity from liability, and the Ohio Supreme Court rejects that defense in a final judgment against him. Congress has enacted a statute authorizing Supreme Court review of final state-court judgments that deny a federal right specially claimed.

Under the majority's reasoning, is that congressional authorization constitutional as applied here?

Explanation. Yes. The majority read Article III's reference to 'all cases in law and equity' arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States to include cases in any court, state or federal, where a federal right or defense is asserted. It rejected the narrower view that only cases originally commenced in federal court may be reviewed. Congress may use the Necessary and Proper Clause to provide for that appellate review. (Derived from Ableman v. Booth (n.d.).)