14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816)
In April 1791 an action of ejectment was commenced in a Virginia district court held at Winchester for recovery of land within the Northern Neck tract.1 Denny Fairfax, a British subject holding under the devise of Thomas Lord Fairfax, was admitted to defend upon the usual terms of confessing lease, entry and ouster.2 The facts were reduced to a case agreed and treated as a special verdict. On 24 April 1794 the district court entered judgment for the defendant.3
The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals of Virginia, the highest court of law in the state. At its April term in 1810 that court reversed the district court judgment and entered judgment for the plaintiff.4 The case was then removed into the Supreme Court of the United States.5
At February term 1813 the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals judgment and issued a mandate directing that its judgment be carried into execution.6 The Court of Appeals unanimously declined to obey the mandate. It entered judgment declaring that the Supreme Court's appellate power did not extend to it under the Constitution, that section 25 of the Judiciary Act was not in pursuance of the Constitution, that the writ of error had been improvidently allowed, and that proceedings in the Supreme Court were coram non judice.7
A second writ of error was brought to the Supreme Court.8 The underlying facts agreed by the parties show that Lord Fairfax, a citizen and inhabitant of Virginia, died in December 1781 seized of approximately 300,000 acres in the Northern Neck.9 By his will he devised the lands in fee to his nephew Denny Martin, later Denny Fairfax, a native-born British subject who resided in England until his death between 1796 and 1803 and who never became a citizen of the United States.10 In 1789 the Governor of Virginia issued a patent granting a portion of the land, described as waste and ungranted and never escheated, to David Hunter, a Virginia citizen, pursuant to a treasury warrant dated 23 January 1788.11 The case agreed also incorporates the definitive treaty of peace of 1783, the treaty of amity of 1794, and the several Virginia statutes concerning land grants and escheats.12
Whether the appellate power of the Supreme Court of the United States extends to the Court of Appeals of Virginia under the Constitution?13
Article III of the Constitution vests the judicial power of the United States in one supreme court and such inferior courts as Congress may establish.14 It extends that power to all cases arising under the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made under their authority.15 The Supreme Court possesses appellate jurisdiction in all such cases not within its original jurisdiction, subject to exceptions and regulations by Congress.16
Yes. The case involves a dispute over land title claimed under a British subject's devise that is asserted to be protected by federal treaties.17 The Virginia Court of Appeals refused to obey the Supreme Court's mandate after the 1813 reversal.18 The Constitution's mandatory language requires that appellate jurisdiction reach state courts.19 This prevents Congress's discretion from defeating the constitutional injunction and ensures uniform interpretation of federal questions.20
The appellate power of the Supreme Court of the United States extends to the Court of Appeals of Virginia under the Constitution.21
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Johnson concurred in the judgment.22 He stressed that the decision left the Court supreme over persons and cases within its judicial powers without asserting compulsory control over state tribunals themselves.23 He noted that the 25th section provided a mechanism for this Court to execute its judgment if the state court declined to comply.24
Johnson viewed the question as affecting the permanence of the union and cautioned against prostrating state sovereignties.25 He observed that the Court of Appeals had assumed too large a latitude by declaring the proceedings coram non judice.26
Whether section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is consistent with the Constitution in extending appellate jurisdiction to state courts?27
Congress may by statute confer appellate jurisdiction on the Supreme Court over final judgments of the highest state courts.28 This applies in cases where the validity or construction of a treaty, federal statute, or federal authority is drawn into question and the state court decision is against the federal claim or title specially set up under it.29
Yes. The Court of Appeals judgment denied the validity of section 25 of the Judiciary Act.30 It did so by declaring the section not in pursuance of the Constitution and by refusing to obey the Supreme Court mandate.31 The constitutional structure requires appellate review to reach state courts deciding federal questions arising under treaties.32 Section 25 supplies the procedural mechanism for such review by writ of error without violating state judicial independence.33
Section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is consistent with the Constitution in extending appellate jurisdiction to state courts.34
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Johnson agreed that section 25 was valid.35 He emphasized that Congress had framed the provision to give state courts the option of complying with this Court's judgment or allowing this Court to execute its judgment directly.36 This approach avoided any assertion of direct compulsory process against state tribunals.37
Johnson viewed the question as of momentous importance affecting the permanence of the American union and cautioned that the general government must cease to exist if it loses the power of protecting itself.38 He expressed confidence that revising power could be secured by means that do not infringe the dignity of state courts, such as judicial remedies operating upon parties rather than compulsory process upon state courts.39
Whether the present case falls within the 25th section of the Judiciary Act?40
Yes. The Court of Appeals judgment was final because it operated as a perpetual stay of proceedings on the mandate.43 The judgment expressly denied the validity of section 25 of the Judiciary Act.44 The underlying dispute concerns title protected by the treaties of 1783 and 1794.45 This satisfies the statutory requirement that the decision be against a title set up under federal authority.46
The present case falls within the 25th section of the Judiciary Act.47
Whether the Supreme Court may review a state court's decision involving title when a treaty is in question without the record expressly stating that the decision turned on the treaty?48
When a treaty is incorporated into the record and the title at issue is claimed to be protected by that treaty, the Supreme Court may examine the existence and validity of the title.49 This determines whether the title falls within the treaty's protection, even if the state court record does not explicitly state that the decision rested on the treaty.50
Yes. The case agreed incorporates the treaties of 1783 and 1794.51 Denny Fairfax's title derives from Lord Fairfax's devise while Hunter's patent was issued after the treaties.52 The Court must inquire into the title to decide whether it is protected by the treaties.53 The absence of an explicit statement in the Court of Appeals opinion does not defeat review because the treaty question is apparent on the face of the record.54
The Supreme Court may review a state court's decision involving title when a treaty is in question without the record expressly stating that the decision turned on the treaty.55