Ware v. Hylton
Ware v. Hylton | |
---|---|
Case history | |
Prior | Appeal from the Virginia Circuit Court |
Holding | |
Treaties made under the Constitution supersede state law. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Seriatim | Chase |
Seriatim | Iredell |
Seriatim | Wilson |
Seriatim | Cushing |
Dissent | Paterson |
Ellsworth took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. art. VI, Treaty of Paris |
Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796), also known as the British Debt Case, was a
Background
The Treaty of Paris of 1783, which ended the Revolutionary War between Great Britain and the United States, provided that creditors of both countries should "meet no lawful impediment" when recovering "bona fide" debts from one another.[3]
A resident of the state of Virginia owed a debt to a British subject; the state had enacted a law allowing debtors to British creditors to discharge their debts, on the grounds that the debt was owed to an alien enemy. The administrator of the British creditor sued in federal court to recover what was owed, citing the relevant provisions of the treaty.
Decision
The Supreme Court struck down the Virginia law primarily on the grounds that it violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes that federal laws and treaties are the supreme law of the land. The Treaty of Paris, which was ratified pursuant to the Constitution, therefore had the force of domestic federal law and superseded the conflicting state law; this was the first time the clause had been explicitly cited by the court.
Four justices released their opinions
The first [general law] is universal, or established by the general consent of mankind, and binds all nations. The second [conventional law] is founded on express consent, and is not universal, and only binds those nations that have assented to it. The third [customary law] is founded on TACIT consent; and is only obligatory on those nations, who have adopted it.[6]
Ware is also notable for having been argued on both sides by several prominent legal minds of the time, including Patrick Henry, John Wickham, and John Marshall, who would later become Chief Justice of the Court.[7] Although he represented the losing side, Marshall's argument won him great admiration at the time of its delivery, increasing his reputation as a lawyer and legal scholar.[8]
Legacy
The oral argument in the case was reenacted at
See also
References
- ^ "Ware v Hylton: Supreme Court Power to Invalidate State Laws re: Selective Service Act of 1917". Constitutional Law Reporter. May 10, 2016. Retrieved April 30, 2019.
- S2CID 247663765.
- ^ Maeva Marcus, Editor; et al. Documentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789-1800 (1985-2007).
- ^ Reports of Cases Ruled and Adjudged in the Several Courts of the United States and of Pennsylvania Held at the Seat of the Federal Government, Volume III, edited by Dallas, Alexander J, Banks Law Publishing, New York, 1905 p. 198.
- ^ Dumbauld, Edward (1955). "John Marshall and the Law of Nations". University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 104: 38–56 – via HeinOnline.
- )
- ^ Quoted Flanders, Henry The Life of John Marshall, pp 30-31, Philadelphia, T. & J. W. Johnson & Co., 1905.
- ^ Quoted Flanders, Henry The Life of John Marshall, p 38, Philadelphia, T. & J. W. Johnson & Co., 1905.
- ^ Bookout, Ann, "Annual Report of the Regent," Mount Vernon Ladies' Association Annual Report, Two Thousand Ten (Mount Vernon, Va. 2011), pp. 15-16.