Martin v. Mott

Supreme Court of the United States · 1827 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsMilitiaPresidential powersJudicial reviewMilitia Act of 1795Presidentexclusive judgeconclusive determination

Facts

The avowry alleged that the defendant took the plaintiff's goods to satisfy a fine and forfeiture imposed by a court-martial. The fine was imposed because the plaintiff failed to enter the service of the United States as a militia-man when required by the President under the Act of February 28, 1795. The plaintiff demurred to the avowry on numerous grounds, including that the President's orders and the factual exigency were inadequately pleaded and that the court-martial lacked proper authority. The state courts held the avowry insufficient.

Issue

Under the Militia Act of 1795, is the President the sole and exclusive judge of whether the statutory exigency for calling forth the militia exists, so that his decision is conclusive on subordinates and need not be independently averred or proved in the avowry? Also, was the avowry sufficient in alleging a lawful court-martial sentence and justification for the seizure of the plaintiff's property?

Rule

Under the Act of 1795, the President has exclusive authority to decide whether an invasion or imminent danger of invasion, or other statutory exigency, exists requiring the militia to be called forth, and that determination is conclusive upon all other persons. When a statute confers discretionary power on an officer to act upon his own opinion of certain facts, the statute makes him the sole and exclusive judge of those facts. Acts done by subordinate officers in obedience to such presidential orders are justified, and a pleading need not aver the actual existence of the exigency if it alleges action pursuant to the President's call.

🔒

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.

During rising tensions off the Atlantic coast, the President determines that there is imminent danger of invasion and directs the governor of Maine to call up several militia companies. Owen Barrett, a militia captain in Portland, refuses to report and later argues in a civil action over collection of his fine that no real danger existed because local newspapers had downplayed the threat.

How should a court treat Owen's argument?

Explanation. The majority held that under the 1795 statute the President is the sole and exclusive judge whether the statutory exigency exists, and his decision is conclusive on all others. Subordinates may not relitigate whether the danger truly existed, because allowing each officer or soldier to do so would destroy discipline and defeat the statute's purpose.