Hayburn’s Case, 2 U.S. 409 (1792) is one of the earliest decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Although the Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized the creation of the Court, the justices did not consider their first
case until 1792.

Hayburn’s case presented the Court’s first opportunity to decide the justiciability of a legal matter under Article
III of the U.S. Constitution, which refers to the Court’s authority to adequately resolve a dispute. In the end, the
justices never rendered a final decision.

The Legal Background

Under the Invalid Pensions Act of 1792, Congress required the United States Circuit Courts to hear disability
pension claims filed by Revolutionary War veterans. The statute mandated that the courts determine the
monthly payments owed to the veterans based on their degree of disability and certify the findings to the
secretary of war, who was authorized to reject claims if he suspected ”imposition or mistake.”

Five of the then-six justices of the Supreme Court, who were also serving as circuit judges, wrote letters to
President George Washington in which they declined to hear the claims and questioned the constitutionality of
the Invalid Pensions Act. They argued that the duties imposed by the act were not judicial. John Jay, William
Cushing, James Wilson, John Blair, Jr., and James Iredell, who served as members of the United States Circuit
Courts for the Districts of New York, Pennsylvania and North Carolina, wrote:

[C]ourts cannot be warranted, as we conceive, by virtue of that part of the Constitution delegating Judicial
power, for the exercise of which any act of the legislature is provided, in exercising (even under the authority of
another act) [2 U.S. 402, 413] any power not in its nature judicial, or, if judicial, not provided for upon the
terms the Constitution requires.

The justices further maintained that authorizing the Executive Branch to oversee their judicial findings, and
potentially reversing or revising the decisions, violated the separation of powers set forth in the first three
articles of the Constitution. “And we beg leave to add, with all due deference, that no decision of any court of
the United States can, under any circumstances, in our opinion, agreeable to the Constitution, be liable to a
reversion, or even suspension, by the Legislature itself, in whom no judicial power of any kind appears to be
vested, but the important one relative to impeachments,” the justices wrote to President Washington.

1
In the wake of the justices’ refusal to consider the applications, United States Attorney General Randolph filed a
motion for mandamus in the Supreme Court to direct the Circuit Court in Pennsylvania to proceed on William
Hayburn’s pension petition.

The Court’s Opinion

The Attorney General initially brought his petition ex officio, without an application from any particular person,
but with a view to procure the execution of an act of Congress. In response to questions from the justices
regarding his authority to bring the motion, Randolph reportedly “entered into an elaborate description of the
powers and duties of his office.” When several justices remained unconvinced, the Attorney General returned to
the Court as Hayburn’s attorney. As the legal representative of an interested party, Randolph challenged the
Circuit Courts’ ability to defy an act of Congress and, in doing so, deny Hayburn his pension.

The Court stated that it would hold the motion under advisement until the next term; however, it never
published a decision, as Congress amended the Pension Act to rectify the offending provisions. Nonetheless,
the Hayburn’s Case set the stage for the Supreme Court to later find statutes enacted by Congress
unconstitutional.

2
 CHISOLM v GEORGIA (1792)

Facts of the case

In 1792, Alexander Chisholm attempted to sue the State of Georgia in the U.S. Supreme Court over payments

due to him for goods that Robert Farquhar had supplied Georgia during the American Revolutionary War. The

defendant, Georgia, refused to appear, claiming that as a sovereign state, it could not be sued without

consenting to the suit. 

Question

Can state citizens sue state governments in federal court? 

Conclusion

In a 4-to-1 decision, the Court ruled for the plaintiff, reasoning that Article 3, Section 2, of the Constitution

abrogated the states’ sovereign immunity and granted federal courts the affirmative power to hear disputes

between private citizens and states. Thus, state conduct was subject to judicial review.

Justice Iredell dissented, reasoning that under Common Law, each state was sovereign, and could not be sued

without consent. This opinion eventually became law with the passage of the Eleventh Amendment to the

Constitution, which provides that "The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to

any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another

State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any foreign state."

3
 MARBURY v MADISON

Facts of the case

Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the 1800 presidential election. Before Jefferson took office on March
4, 1801, Adams and Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which created new courts, added judges, and
gave the president more control over appointment of judges. The Act was essentially an attempt by Adams and
his party to frustrate his successor, as he used the act to appoint 16 new circuit judges and 42 new justices of the
peace. The appointees were approved by the Senate, but they would not be valid until their commissions were
delivered by the Secretary of State. 

William Marbury had been appointed Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia, but his commission was
not delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to compel the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to
deliver the documents. Marbury, joined by three other similarly situated appointees, petitioned for a writ of
mandamus compelling the delivery of the commissions. 

Question

1. Do the plaintiffs have a right to receive their commissions?

2. Can they sue for their commissions in court?
3. Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order the delivery of their commissions?
4.

Conclusion

UNANIMOUS DECISION FOR MARBURY 

MAJORITY OPINION BY JOHN MARSHALL

Though Marbury was entitled to it, the Court was unable to grant it because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of
1789 conflicted with Article III Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution and was therefore null and void.

4
The Court found that Madison’s refusal to deliver the commission was illegal, but did not order Madison to
hand over Marbury’s commission via writ of mandamus. Instead, the Court held that the provision of the
Judiciary Act of 1789 enabling Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional,
since it purported to extend the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III, Section 2,
established. 

Marshall expanded that a writ of mandamus was the proper way to seek a remedy, but concluded the Court
could not issue it. Marshall reasoned that the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with the Constitution. Congress
did not have power to modify the Constitution through regular legislation because Supremacy Clause places the
Constitution before the laws. 

In so holding, Marshall established the principle of judicial review, i.e., the power to declare a law
unconstitutional.