Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Luther v. Borden

Supreme Court of the United States · 1849 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawPolitical Question DoctrineGuarantee ClauseState Government LegitimacyMartial Lawpolitical questionGuarantee ClauseArticle IV

Facts

During the Rhode Island political disturbances of 1841-1842, defendants, acting in the military service of the charter government, broke and entered Martin Luther's house to search for and arrest him because they had reason to believe he was involved in the armed opposition supporting the rival Dorr government. Plaintiff claimed the charter government had been displaced by a new constitution allegedly ratified by the people and that defendants were therefore trespassers. The charter government had refused to recognize the rival government, continued to exercise authority throughout the State, declared martial law to suppress the armed opposition, and was recognized by the President as the State's executive authority for possible federal support. The circuit court treated the charter government as the lawful government and upheld defendants' justification.

Issue

May a federal court decide, in a trespass action, whether the charter government of Rhode Island had been displaced by a rival government allegedly adopted by the people? If not, were defendants justified in entering plaintiff's house under the authority of the charter government while suppressing an armed insurrection?

Rule

Whether a State government has been lawfully displaced and which competing government is the established government of a State is a political question for the political branches, not the courts. Courts must follow the determination made by the State's political authorities, Congress, and where applicable the President acting under federal law. Once the recognized government is accepted as lawful, a State may use military force against armed insurrection, and its officers may arrest and search for suspected insurgents on reasonable grounds, using no more force than necessary.

🔒

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 Oregon, a reform coalition held unauthorized town meetings, drafted a new state constitution, and declared that a new governor had taken office after a popular ratification vote it organized itself. The existing state government in Salem rejected the process, continued to exercise authority statewide, and its courts kept operating under the old constitution. A homeowner later sued state militia officers in federal court for trespass during a search connected to the unrest.

If the homeowner asks the federal court to determine which of the two rival governments was the lawful government of Oregon at the time of the search, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that whether an existing state government has been displaced and which competing government is the established government of a State is not a judicial question. Courts must follow the determination made by the political authorities rather than receive testimony and decide for themselves whether a rival constitution was validly ratified.