SCOTUS decisions that diminished States Rights.

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
2,790
Reaction score
1,408
These stand out as SCOTUS decisions that diminished states rights.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
1,578
Reaction score
1,297
These stand out as SCOTUS decisions that diminished states rights.
You should list the cases the SCOTUS protected and advance slavery in our nation because Slavery in a State Rights issue...
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
2,790
Reaction score
1,408
You should list the cases the SCOTUS protected and advance slavery in our nation because Slavery in a State Rights issue...
When slavery protection was an issue, it was framed as federal preemption. Prigg v Pennsylvania and Ableman v Booth are examples.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
1,578
Reaction score
1,297
They were about state overreaching their authority... or state rights?

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/41us539

Facts of the case

The Pennsylvania legislature passed laws in 1788 and 1826 prohibiting the removal of Negroes out of the state for the purpose of enslaving them. In 1832, a black woman named Margaret Morgan moved from Maryland to Pennsylvania. Although she was never formally emancipated, her owner John Ashmore granted her virtually full freedom. Ashmore's heirs wanted her returned as a slave and sent Edward Prigg to capture her in Pennsylvania. After returning Morgan to Maryland, Prigg was convicted in a Pennsylvania court for violating the 1826 law. Prigg unsuccessfully argued before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that both the 1788 and 1826 laws violated the constitutional guarantee of extradition among states and the federal government's Fugitive Slave Law of 1793.

Question
Did Pennsylvania's law prohibiting the extradition of Negroes to other states for the purpose of slavery violate Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution? Did the law violate the Fugitive Slave Law of 1793 as applied by the Supremacy Clause?

Conclusion
Yes and yes. Justice Joseph Story delivered the opinion of the Court. The 1788 and 1826 Pennsylvania laws contradicted Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution and the Fugitive Slave Law. The Supremacy Clause assured that federal laws prevailed over the state laws. The decision did not wholly end asylum across state lines for slaves. Story granted that the state laws put in place by slave states to recapture slaves in free states only had to be enforced by federal officials, and not state magistrates.


https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/62us506

Facts of the case

Sherman Booth petitioned a local court judge for the release of Joshua Glover, a runaway slave held in federal custody in Wisconsin. Though the federal authorities did not accept the judge's order, a mob eventually freed Glover. Booth was charged with aiding the escape of a runaway slave in violation of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Via a writ of habeas corpus, Booth successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of Wisconsin for his release. Booth was then convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Wisconsin and detained again. Booth again petitioned the Supreme Court of Wisconsin for his release, alleging that the Fugitive Slave Act was unconstitutional and that the Federal District Court lacked jurisdiction. Booth was again released by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The United States appealed to the Supreme Court.

Question
Did the Supreme Court of Wisconsin have the authority to issue the writs of habeas corpus that released Booth?

Conclusion
In a unanimous decision, the Court reversed the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. In an opinion authored by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the Court asserted the supremacy of federal courts on issues of federal law. The Court dismissed Wisconsin's claim of judicial power, since "it certainly has not been conferred on them by the United States; and it is equally clear it was not in the power of the State to confer it." While Wisconsin courts had authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to cases where the prisoner was held by the state, the Court explained, this authority did not extend to prisoners held by the federal government.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
1,578
Reaction score
1,297
How does this case fit in:

American Insurance Company v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 511 (1828), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The case involved the validity of a local court established by Congress in the Florida Territory whose judges lacked life tenure, as mandated by Article III of the Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall upheld the courts on the basis of Congress's broad power to enact local laws for territories under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution.[1] The case was later discussed in Dred Scott v. Sandford, where Chief Justice Roger Taney distinguished it in holding that Congress could not ban slavery within a territory.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
1,578
Reaction score
1,297
I found this to explain how American Insurance Company v. 356 Bales of Cotton, and Dred Scott case are related... the paragraph of the page...

 
Top