Stuart v. Laird
| Stuart v. Laird | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued February 23–24, 1803 Decided March 2, 1803 |
|
| Full case name | Hugh Stuart v. John Laird |
| Citations | 5 U.S. 299 (more)
2 L. Ed. 115; 1803 U.S. LEXIS 362; 1 Cranch 299
|
| Prior history | Error from the 5th circuit in the Virginia district |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Paterson, joined by Cushing, Chase, Washington, Moore |
| Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Stuart v. Laird, 5 U.S. 299 (1803), was a case decided by the John Marshall-led U.S. Supreme Court, notably a week after the famous Marbury v. Madison.
The case regards a circuit judge's judgment, after the judge's job had been abolished by the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801. Stuart's lawyer was Charles Lee, who also represented William Marbury. John Laird asked the Supreme Court to uphold the judge's ruling, while Stuart's team argued that only the court that renders a judgment can enforce it and the 1802 repeal of 1801's Judiciary Act was unconstitutional. Stuart lost on both accounts, and a dangerous showdown between the legislative and the judicial branches of the US government was averted.
The case involved the Judiciary Act of 1801, which created a number of federal judgeships, the so-called "midnight judges," as the Act was passed by the lame-duck Federalists in their final days in office. The Act established new circuit court judges to hear intermediate appeals.
As a result, Supreme Court justices would no longer have to "ride circuit," which entailed substantial and often dangerous travel, to sit with district (trial) court judges to hear appeals throughout the nation. Soon after its passage, the statute was invalidated by the Repeal Act of March 8, 1802. Federalists attacked the Jeffersonian legislation by arguing that federal judges were appointed for life and so could not be constitutionally removed by the Repeal Act. The Judiciary Act of 1802 reinstated circuit courts but also resurrected the practice of circuit riding. Many thought the new 1802 Act unconstitutional, including new Chief Justice John Marshall. He argued that justices should not have to preside over circuit courts unless they were commissioned as circuit court judges. He wrote the other justices, "I am not of opinion that we can under our present appointments hold circuit courts, but I presume a contrary opinion is held by the Court and, if so, I shall conform to it."
...
Wikipedia