Fairchild v. Hughes, No. 148
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | BRANDEIS |
| Citation | 258 U.S. 126,66 L.Ed. 499,42 S.Ct. 274 |
| Docket Number | No. 148 |
| Decision Date | 27 February 1922 |
| Parties | FAIRCHILD v. HUGHES, Secretary of State, et al |
v.
HUGHES, Secretary of State, et al.
Messrs. Wm. L. Marbury and Thomas F. Cadwalader, both of Baltimore, Everett P. Wheeler, of New York City, Alfred D. Smith, of Washington, D. C., and Waldo G. Morse, of New York City, for appellant.
Page 127
Mr. Solicitor General Beck, of Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.
On July 7, 1920, Charles S. Fairchild, of New York, brought this suit in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia against the Secretary of State and the Attorney General. The prayers of the bill are that 'the so-called Suffrage Amendment [the Nineteenth to the federal Constitution] be declared unconstitutional and void'; that the Secretary of State be restrained from issuing any proclamation declaring that it has been ratified; and that the Attorney General be restrained from enforcing it. There is also a prayer for general relief and for an interlocutory injunction. The plaintiff, and others on whose behalf he sues, are citizens of the United States, taxpayers and members of the American Constitutional League, a voluntary association which describes itself as engaged in diffusing 'knowledge as to the fundamental principles of the American Constitution, and especially that which gives to each state the right to determine for itself the question as to who should exercise the elective franchise therein.'
The claim to relief was rested upon the following allegations: The Legislatures of 34 of the states have passed resolutions purporting to ratify the Suffrage Amendment; and from one other state the Secretary of State of the United States has received a certificate to that effect purporting to come from the proper officer. The proposed amendment cannot, for reasons stated, be made a part of the Constitution through ratification by the Legislatures, and there are also specific reasons why the resolutions already adopted in several of the states are inoperative. But the Secretary has declared that he is
Page 128
without power to examine into the validity of alleged acts of ratification, and that, upon receiving from one additional state the customary certificate, he will issue a proclamation declaring that the Suffrage Amendment has been adopted. Furthermore, 'a force bill' has been introduced in the Senate, which provides fine and imprisonment for any person who...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Westlands Water Dist. v. US Dept. of Interior, No. CV-F-93-5327 OWW SSH.
...the right to require that the government correctly apply the law does not state an Article III case or controversy. Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 129-130, 42 S.Ct. 274, 275, 66 L.Ed. 499 850 F. Supp. 1425 (1922). Moreover, the concurring opinion in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife apposi......
-
Chiatello v. City, A126234
...and not merely that he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally." (Id. at p. 488; cf. Fairchild v. Hughes (1922) 258 U.S. 126, 129 ["Plaintiff has only the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the government be administered according to law and that the p......
-
Chiatello v. City, No. A126234.
...he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally." **188 ( Id. at p. 488, 43 S.Ct. 597; cf. Fairchild v. Hughes (1922) 258 U.S. 126, 129, 42 S.Ct. 274, 66 L.Ed. 499 ["Plaintiff has only the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the government be administered ac......
-
United States v. Texas, 1:21-CV-796-RP
...decided Fairchild v. Hughes in 1922 that the Supreme Court began directly addressing the “right to sue” as such. Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 129 (1922) (finding that the plaintiff's “alleged interest in the question submitted is not such as to afford a basis for this proceeding”). Th......
-
Westlands Water Dist. v. US Dept. of Interior, No. CV-F-93-5327 OWW SSH.
...the right to require that the government correctly apply the law does not state an Article III case or controversy. Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 129-130, 42 S.Ct. 274, 275, 66 L.Ed. 499 850 F. Supp. 1425 (1922). Moreover, the concurring opinion in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife apposi......
-
Chiatello v. City, A126234
...and not merely that he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally." (Id. at p. 488; cf. Fairchild v. Hughes (1922) 258 U.S. 126, 129 ["Plaintiff has only the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the government be administered according to law and that the p......
-
Chiatello v. City, No. A126234.
...he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally." **188 ( Id. at p. 488, 43 S.Ct. 597; cf. Fairchild v. Hughes (1922) 258 U.S. 126, 129, 42 S.Ct. 274, 66 L.Ed. 499 ["Plaintiff has only the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the government be administered ac......
-
United States v. Texas, 1:21-CV-796-RP
...decided Fairchild v. Hughes in 1922 that the Supreme Court began directly addressing the “right to sue” as such. Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 129 (1922) (finding that the plaintiff's “alleged interest in the question submitted is not such as to afford a basis for this proceeding”). Th......
-
Prosecution Insights Gleaned from a Review of Recent Patent Examiner Training
...§ 2, cl. 1. 2. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 492–93 (2009). 3. Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2661 (2013). 4. 258 U.S. 126 (1922). 5. See Joan Steinman, Shining a Light in a Dim Corner: Standing to Appeal and the Right to Defend a Judgment in the Federal Courts , 38......
-
Standing for Everyone: Sierra Club v. Morton, Justice Blackmun's Dissent, and Solving the Problem of Environmental Standing
...v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 488 (1923); Edward Hines Yellow Pine Trs. v. United States, 263 U.S. 143, 148 (1923); Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 129 (1922). 44. Francisco Benzoni, Environmental Standing: Who Determines the Value of Other Life? , 18 Duke Envtl. L. & Pol’y F. 347, 351, 353-5......
-
When 30 Years of Practice Goes Against You: Patent Venue Ruling 'Ignores' Supreme Court Precedent
...§ 2, cl. 1. 2. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 492–93 (2009). 3. Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2661 (2013). 4. 258 U.S. 126 (1922). 5. See Joan Steinman, Shining a Light in a Dim Corner: Standing to Appeal and the Right to Defend a Judgment in the Federal Courts , 38......
-
Article III Separation of Powers, Standing, and the Rejection of a 'Public Rights' Model of Environmental Citizen Suits
...97. Id . at 107. 98. Id . at 106 (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 572, 22 ELR 20913 (1992); Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 129-30 (1922)). 99. Id . at 107. ch08.indd 207 4/30/09 10:12:05 AM 208 the clean water act and the constitution because only those types of rel......