Sold – The Only Signed John Marshall Supreme Court Judgment and Opinion Known to Be in Private Hands

Two hundred years after his appointment as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Marshall is one of the most universally admired men in American history. If Washington was the leading figure at the time of independence, and Lincoln was the leader who saved the Union at its time of greatest peril, Marshall’s role in creating a viable Federal government makes him the most important figure of the early 19th century. He served from 1801 to 1835, and was the virtual founder of Constitutional law and judicial precedent, moving the Court from the fringes of power to the epicenter of government.

As early as 1803, he decided the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison, declaring the power of the Supreme Court to determine what the Constitution permits. In 1819, Marshall’s decision in McCulloch vs. the State of Maryland gave the Court the power to set aside state legislative acts if they were in conflict with the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps even more importantly, he declared that Congress was not limited in legislating to acts specifically enumerated in the Constitution, but could pass laws in the manner most beneficial to the people.

“Let the end be legitimate,” said Marshall, “let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.” Marshall was vilified at the time as a despot, but the U.S. government, if it could exist at all, would be ineffectual without his interpretation. Cases which made the most significant and lasting contributions to American constitutional history are included in The Founders’ Constitution. In these books the material is arranged by article, section, and clause of the U.S. Constitution, from the Preamble through Article Seven and continuing through the first twelve Amendments.

Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1 states, “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authorityÉto controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States; between a state and citizens of another state; between citizens of different states; between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States.”

The Marshall Court set out to define who specifically had access to the Federal courts under this clause, and those cases considered major are reported in The Founders’ Constitution. One included case is Strawbridge v. Curtiss (1806), where Marshall found that every party on one side of a case must be competent to sue, or liable to be sued, to reach Federal court. In a second case, Corporation of New Orleans v. Winter (1816), he reaffirmed the Strawbridge case, and went on to hold that citizens of territories (such as Puerto Rico and Guam today) were not citizens of states under the Constitution, and could not sue in Federal court.

Supreme Court Opinion Signed as Chief Justice, August 10, 1816, Washington, in which Justice Marshall wrote for the court. “In the case of Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellzey, this court determinedÉthat a citizen of the District of Columbia could not maintain a suit in the circuit court of the United States. That opinion is still retained. It has been attempted to distinguish a territory from the District of Columbia; but the court is of opinion, that this distinction cannot be maintained. They may differ in many respects, but neither of them is a state, in the sense in which that term is used in the Constitution. Every reason assigned for the opinion of the Court, that a citizen of District of Columbia was not capable of suing in the courts of the United States, under the Judiciary Act, is equally applicable to a citizen of a territory. Gabriel Winter, then, being a citizen of the Mississippi Territory, was incapable of maintaining a suit alone in the circuit court of Louisiana. Is his case mended by being associated with others who are capable of suing in that court? In the case of Strawbridge et al. v. Curtis et al., it was decided, that where a joint interest is prosecuted, the jurisdiction cannot be sustained, unless each individual be entitled to claim that jurisdiction. In this case it has been doubted, whether the parties might elect to sue jointly or severally. However this may be, having elected to sue jointly, the court is incapable of distinguishing their case, so far as respects jurisdiction, from one in which they were compelled to unite. The circuit court of Louisiana, therefore, had no jurisdiction of the cause, and their judgment must, on that account, be reversed, and the petition dismissed.”

The decision was reported as 1 Wheaton 91. Wheaton was the official Supreme Court Reporter from 1816-1827. The recent discovery of this document is a landmark in Supreme Court documentary history, as it is the only signed Marshall Supreme Court opinion or judgment known to be in private hands.