Unit I.

Judicial Power Hayburn’s  Case

HAYBURN’S CASE
2 U.S. 409 (1792)

[Background: In 1792, Congress adopted a law intended to assist veterans of the

Revolutionary War. The law provided that veterans should submit pension claims to
Federal judges, who would review them and submit a recommendation to the Secretary of
War (who we today would call the Secretary of Defense). The judges were to recommend
whether the claim should be paid and, if so, the appropriate amount. The act provided that
the secretary had the final discretion to approve, reject, or modify the judge’s
recommendation. In a series of opinions, the justices sitting in their “circuit riding”
capacity found this arrangement to be unconstitutional. The excerpt below is illustrative
of the reasoning in these opinions.]

Upon due consideration, we have been unanimously of opinion that [Federal courts
should not comply with the act because] if, upon that business, the court had proceeded,
its judgments (for its opinions are its judgments) might, under the same act, have been
revised and controulled . . . by an officer in the executive department. Such revision and
controul we deemed radically inconsistent with the independence of that judicial power
which is vested in the courts, and consequently with that important principle which is so
strictly observed by the Constitution of the United States.

These, Sir, are the reasons of our conduct. Be assured that though it became necessary, it
was far from being pleasant. To be obliged to act contrary either to the obvious directions
of Congress or to a constitutional principle, in our judgment equally obvious, excited
feelings in us which we hope never to experience again.