Existing comment:
Cohens v Virginia, 1821:
The issue of "states' rights" often dominated political discussions in the early years of the American republic. At various times, the debate took on ominous tones, and threats of dissolving the Union were heard in Congress and elsewhere. Emotions and political discord were reaching a fever pitch in 1820, as discussion centered on whether Missouri should enter the Union as a "slave state" or "free state." While the Missouri Compromise promised some relief, the reality was that sectional differences were increasing and many issues remained unresolved. In this highly charged atmosphere, a seemingly trivial and unrelated event led to a tense legal confrontation: the sale of lottery tickets.
In 1819, the Virginia legislature passed a law prohibiting the sale of unauthorized lottery tickets as of January 1, 1820. The same year, Cohen's lottery firm, based in Baltimore, opened a branch office in Norfolk, Virginia. In June, Philip and Mendes Cohen were accrued of selling six tickets in the Grand National Lottery, authorized by the United States Congress under an 1802 statute that incorporated the District of Columbia. Convicted of breaking the new Virginia law, the Cohens were fined $100.
In what was arguably a "test case" to see if the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear such cases, the Cohen brothers, represented by David H. Ogden and William Pinkney, appealed the Norfolk court decision directly to the Supreme Court. They claimed that their sale of lottery tickets was authorized by the congressional statute, which suspended the law of Virginia. On the other side, the counsel for the state of Virginia, Philip P. Barbour and Alexander Smyth, claimed that the Eleventh Amendment forbade the Supreme Court from even hearing the Cohens' appeal. In reality, Virginia was trying to use this case to continue the battle over the supremacy of the federal government over state sovereignty that had been central in the Court cases of Fairfax's Devisee v Hunter's Lessee (1813), Martin v Hunter's Lessee (1816) and McCulloch v Maryland (1819).
Marshall's opinion, for a unanimous Court, reiterated federal judicial authority to decide federal questions. That is, Marshall found that state courts were free to interpret state laws, but when a federal issue arose, the Eleventh Amendment did not bar a federal court from deciding the issue, even when a state was a party to the case. The Cohens, therefore, had a right to be heard in federal court. In another example of Marshall's careful exercise of the Cohen's case. The Court ruled that Congress intended the authorization for the Grand National Lottery to apply only in the District of Columbia. The decision of the Norfolk court was affirmed, but not before Marshall had again declared the primacy of federal courts to decide federal issues.
The debate over the Cohens case continued in the newspapers for almost two years. It was arguably one of the most controversial decisions handed down by the Marshall Court. Ultimately, the decision marked the decline of the "compact theory" supported by Virginia; that the Constitution was formed through a compact of the states. The opinion firmly supported the belief that it was the Constitution, derived from the will of the people, which created the Union of states. Marshall wrote, "The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will." The sectionalism underlying the debate surrounding the Cohens case continued, however, ultimately leading to the Civil War. |