My discussion topic is Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816), in which Justice Joseph Story ruled that under Section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Supreme Court was authorized to review state court decisions pertaining to federal law. This was significant in the shaping of the U.S. government in that “the court rejected the notion of duel judicial sovereignty, in which the state courts and the federal courts have separate and independent domains of power, and instead asserted the primacy of federal courts over federal law.” (Mc Bride, 2006) In other words, if a state appeals a case before the Supreme Court, but disagrees with its decision, the aforementioned state cannot override said decision, which then ensures that the Supreme …show more content…
After substantial debate, Congress passed Jay’s Treaty in 1795, followed by President Washington’s signature. One of the eventual beneficiaries of property granted by the British crown was Lord Thomas Fairfax who owned a large amount of property “in Northern Neck, Virginia.” (jrank.org, 2014) Unfortunately as the Revolutionary War progressed, Virginia passed state laws which enabled it to confiscate property from Loyalists, in addition to evicting them from said property. Among the properties seized by the state of Virginia was Fairfax’s 5.2 million …show more content…
Furthermore, Hunter had taken residence on the Fairfax estate and subdivided it with the intent of renting each parcel of land to local farmers. Martin sued Hunter for recovery of the tract of land, intending to evict him in Virginia state court on the basis of the Treaty of Paris, Jay Treaty, and the U.S. Constitution (which not only gives judicial power to the U.S. Supreme Court, but empowers it to hear disputes concerning treaties, namely that federal treaty provisions superseded state statutes. When the aforementioned court ruled in Martin’s favor, Hunter proceeded to appeal to the Virginia Court of Appeals. When the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Hunter, Martin appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds that its judicial authority superseded that of the Virginia Court of