MARTIN V HUNTER'S LESSEE 14 U.S 304 1816 MARTIN V HUNTER'S LESSEE U.S CONSTITUTION U.S GOV'T JUDICIAL U.S GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUTION SIGNIFICANCE THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD SUPREMACY OVER STATES AND THEREFORE THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY HAD POWER OVER STATE COURTS BACKGROUND DURING THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR THE STATE OF VIRGINIA HAD CONFISCATED LANDS BELONGING TO LOYALISTS LORD THOMAS FAIRFAX A LOYALIST HAD OWNED LAND IN VIRGINIA BUT FLED TO ENGLAND DURING THE WAR HE DIED IN 1781 AND LEFT THE LAND TO HIS NEPHEW DENNY MARTIN THE FOLLOWING YEAR THE VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE VOIDED THE ORIGINAL LAND GRANT AND GAVE SOME OF THE LAND TO DAVID HUNTER HUNTER THEN RENTED IT TO SOMEONE ELSE CALLED THE LESSEE AFTER THE WAR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD SIGNED TWO TREATIES THE TREATY OF PARIS 1783 AND JAY'S TREATY 1794 THAT REQUIRED THE RETURN OF CONFISCATED LANDS TO THE RIGHTFUL OWNERS THESE TREATIES SEEMED TO MAKE CLEAR THAT FAIRFAX AND THEREFORE MARTIN WERE ENTITLED TO THE LAND THE U.S SUPREME COURT DECLARED THAT THE LAND DID BELONG TO FAIRFAX AND HIS HEIRS BUT THE VIRGINIA COURTS REFUSED TO FOLLOW THE RULING VIRGINIA ARGUED THAT THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789 WHICH GAVE THE SUPREME COURT THE RIGHT TO REVIEW STATE LAWS THAT INVOLVED THE CONSTITUTION OR TREATIES WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL DECISION THIS CASE WAS ARGUED ON MARCH 12 1816 AND DECIDED ON MARCH 20 1816 BY A VOTE OF 6 TO 0 JUSTICE JOSEPH STORY SPOKE FOR THE COURT CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN MARSHALL DID NOT PARTICIPATE BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS HOWEVER HE INFLUENCED THE OPINION OF THE COURT STORY'S OPINION REPRIMANDED VIRGINIA FOR IGNORING THE PREVIOUS RULING IN ADDITION THE COURT AFFIRMED THAT THE SUPREME COURT WAS THE ONE SOURCE WITH THE AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION THUS STATES WERE NOT EQUAL TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND HAD TO RECOGNIZE TREATIES AND THE RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT EXCERPT FROM THE OPINION OF THE COURT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WAS ORDAINED AND ESTABLISHED NOT BY THE STATES IN THEIR SOVEREIGN CAPACITIES BUT BY THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT IT WAS COMPETENT TO THE PEOPLE TO INVEST THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT WITH ALL THE POWERS WHICH THEY MIGHT DEEM PROPER AND NECESSARY TO EXTEND OR RESTRAIN THESE POWERS ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN GOOD PLEASURE AND TO GIVE THEM A PARAMOUNT AND SUPREME AUTHORITY AS LITTLE DOUBT CAN THERE BE THAT THE PEOPLE HAD A RIGHT TO PROHIBIT TO THE STATES THE EXERCISE OF ANY POWERS WHICH WERE IN THEIR JUDGMENT INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE OBJECTS OF THE GENERAL COMPACT TO MAKE THE POWERS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENTS IN GIVEN CASES SUBORDINATE TO THOSE OF THE NATION
