The United States v. Hudson and Goodwin

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Citation3 L.Ed. 259,7 Cranch 32,11 U.S. 32
Decision Date13 February 1812
PartiesTHE UNITED STATES v. HUDSON AND GOODWIN

11 U.S. 32
7 Cranch 32
3 L.Ed. 259
THE UNITED STATES
v.
HUDSON AND GOODWIN
February 13, 1812

Absent. Washington, justice.

THIS was a case certified from the Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut, in which, upon argument of a general demurrer to an indictment for a libel on the President and Congress of the United States, contained in the Connecticut Currant, of the 7th of May, 1806, charging them with having in secret voted two millions of dollars as a present to Bonaparte for leave to make a treaty with Spain, the judges of that Court were divided in opinion upon the question, whether the Circuit Court of the United States had a common law jurisdiction in cases of libel.

PINKNEY, Attorney General, in behalf of the United States, and DANA for the Defendants, declined arguing the case.

The Court, having taken time to consider, the following opinion was delivered (on the last day of the term, all the judges being present) by JOHNSON, J.

The only question which this case presents is, whether the Circuit Courts of the United States can exercise a common law jurisdiction in criminal cases. We state it thus broadly because a decision on a case of libel will apply to every case in which jurisdiction is not vested in those Courts by statute.

Although this question is brought up now for the first time to be decided by this Court, we consider it as having been long since settled in public opinion. In no other case for many years has this jurisdiction been asserted; and the general acquiescence of legal men shews the prevalence of opinion in favor of the negative of the proposition.

Page 33

The course of reasoning which leads to this conclusion is simple, obvious, and admits of but little illustration. The powers of the general Government are made up of concessions from the several states—whatever is not expressly given to the former, the latter expressly reserve. The judicial power of the United States is a constituent part of those concessions,—that power is to be exercised by Courts organized for the purpose, and brought into existence by an effort of the legislative power of the Union. Of all the Courts which the United States may, under their general powers, constitute, one only, the Supreme Court, possesses jurisdiction derived immediately from the constitution, and of which the legislative power cannot deprive it. All other Courts created by the general Government possess no jurisdiction but what is given them by the power...

To continue reading

Request your trial
528 practice notes
  • National banks: Authority provided by American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act, and other miscellaneous amendments,
    • United States
    • Federal Register February 07, 2003
    • February 7, 2003
    ...6370]] enacted into law, concluding that courts are vested with certain inherent powers. See, e.g., United States v. Hudson and Goodwin, 11 U.S. 32, 34 (1812) (``Certain implied powers must necessarily result to our Courts of justice from the nature of their institutions.''); State v. Morri......
  • Whalen v. United States, No. 78-5471
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 16, 1980
    ...them, resides wholly with the Congress. See United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95, 5 L.Ed. 37; United States v. Hudson & Goodwin, 7 Cranch 32, 34, 3 L.Ed. 259.3 If a federal court exceeds its own authority by imposing multiple punishments not authorized by Congress, it violates not o......
  • Turedi v. Coca Cola Co., No. 05 Civ. 9635.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • November 2, 2006
    ...with in a Court, because they are necessary to the exercise of all others'") (quoting United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32, 34, 3 L.Ed. 259 (1812)); see also In re Martin-Trigona, 795 F.2d 9, 10-11 (2d Cir.1986) (acting to enjoin a litigant pursuant to the court's "inherent power ......
  • U.S. v. Standefer, No. 78-1909
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • October 11, 1979
    ...federal courts have jurisdiction only over actions specifically proscribed by Congress. United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32, 3 L.Ed. 259 (1812). Thus, in the nineteenth century, a person could be convicted in federal court of aiding and abetting a particular Page 1103 felony only......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
523 cases
  • Whalen v. United States, No. 78-5471
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 16, 1980
    ...them, resides wholly with the Congress. See United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95, 5 L.Ed. 37; United States v. Hudson & Goodwin, 7 Cranch 32, 34, 3 L.Ed. 259.3 If a federal court exceeds its own authority by imposing multiple punishments not authorized by Congress, it violates not o......
  • Turedi v. Coca Cola Co., No. 05 Civ. 9635.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • November 2, 2006
    ...with in a Court, because they are necessary to the exercise of all others'") (quoting United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32, 34, 3 L.Ed. 259 (1812)); see also In re Martin-Trigona, 795 F.2d 9, 10-11 (2d Cir.1986) (acting to enjoin a litigant pursuant to the court's "inherent power ......
  • U.S. v. Standefer, No. 78-1909
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • October 11, 1979
    ...federal courts have jurisdiction only over actions specifically proscribed by Congress. United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32, 3 L.Ed. 259 (1812). Thus, in the nineteenth century, a person could be convicted in federal court of aiding and abetting a particular Page 1103 felony only......
  • United States v. Santos, No. 06–1005.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 2, 2008
    ...we cannot accept that power in a criminal case, where the law must be written by Congress. See [128 S.Ct. 2031] United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 34, 3 L.Ed. 259 (1812). We think it appropriate to add a word concerning the stare decisis effect of Justice STEVENS' opinion. Since his vote......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • ELIMINATING THE FUGITIVE DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE IN IMMIGRATION MATTERS.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 97 Nbr. 3, March 2022
    • March 1, 2022
    ...501 U.S. 32, 43-46 (1991); then citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-631 (1962); and then citing United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. 32, 34 (169) Stolley, supra note 50, at 755-56. (170) Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276, 284 (1922) (stating that deporting a person claiming to be ......
  • Criminal Antitrust
    • United States
    • Antitrust Bulletin Nbr. 61-4, December 2016
    • December 1, 2016
    ...Slip op. (June 27, 2016).30. Id. at 23–24.31. Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010).32. Id. at 412.Weller 605 States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. 32, 7 Cranch 32, 34, 3 L. ED 259 (1812). ...[I] do not believe we have the power,in order to uphold an enactment, to rewrite it.33This principle w......
  • Can a Presidential Pardon Trump an Article Iii Court’s Criminal Contempt Conviction? a Separation of Powers Analysis of President Trump’s Pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio
    • United States
    • The Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy Nbr. 18-1, January 2020
    • January 1, 2020
    ...power is inherent in all courts and “can neither be abrogated nor rendered practically inoperative.”). 40. See United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. 32, 34 (1812). 41. Id. 42. Id. 43. Id. 44. Michaelson, 266 U.S. 42 at 65–66. 212 THE GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY [Vol. 18:207 interfe......
  • The End of Criminal Antitrust's per Se Conclusive Presumptions
    • United States
    • Antitrust Bulletin Nbr. 58-4, December 2013
    • December 1, 2013
    ...(7th Cir. 1979) (emphasis added). See also United States v. Giordano, 261 F.3d 1134 (11th Cir. 2001). 10 United States v. Hudson & Goodwin, 11 U.S. 32, 34 670 : THE ANTITRUST BULLETIN: Vol. 58, No. 4/Winter 2013 ularly in the case of federal crimes, which are solely creatures of statute.”11......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT