The United States v. Hudson and Goodwin
| Decision Date | 13 February 1812 |
| Citation | 3 L.Ed. 259,7 Cranch 32,11 U.S. 32 |
| Parties | THE UNITED STATES v. HUDSON AND GOODWIN |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
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.
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 that creates them, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Walker, Crim. A. No. 80-486.
...punishments. Id.; United States v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. 35, 43, 5 Wheat. 76, 95, 5 L.Ed. 37 (1820); United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. 31, 32-33, 7 Cranch 32, 33-34, 3 L.Ed. 259 (1812). "It is the legislature, not the court, which is to define a crime, and ordain its punishment." United States......
-
U.S. v. Beckford
... 966 F.Supp. 1415 ... UNITED STATES of America ... Dean Anthony BECKFORD, Claude Gerald Dennis, Leonel ... and Rehnquist, J.) (quoting United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 11 U.S. 32, 3 L.Ed. 259 (1812)); see generally United ... ...
-
Jefferson v. Berkebile
...principles of habeas corpus for unlawful pretrial detentions). As courts of limited jurisdiction, see United States v. Hudson & Goodwin, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32, 33-34, 3 L.Ed. 259 (1812), district courts may entertain petitions for this venerable writ only when authorized by statute, Carbo v......
-
Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Distajo
...of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants."); United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32, 34, 3 L.Ed. 259 (1812) (holding that the inherent powers of federal courts are those which "are necessary to the exercise of all others"......
-
Ancillary Enforcement Jurisdiction: the Misinterpretation of Kokkonen and Expungement Petitions
...1398-1400 (11th Cir. 1987) (same).197. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 379-80.198. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 379-80 (citing United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. 32, 34 (1812); 13 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Edward H. Cooper, Richard D. Freer, Federal Practice & Procedure §3523 (3rd ed. 2008)).199.......
-
ELIMINATING THE FUGITIVE DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE IN IMMIGRATION MATTERS.
...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 ......
-
Rewriting Near v. Minnesota: Creating a Complete Definition of Prior Restraint - Michael I. Meyerson
...In 1812 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that there was no common-law jurisdiction in the federal courts. United States v. Hudson & Goodwin, 11 U.S. 32, 34 (1812). 44. See Meyerson, supra note 36. 45. Obviously, the general rule must precede the communication. If a general rule was applied to c......
-
Courting Equity in Bankruptcy.
...(80) The inherent powers of federal courts are those which "are necessary to the exercise of all others." United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 34, 3 L. Ed. 259 (1812). The most prominent of these is the contempt sanction, "which a judge must have and exercise in protecting the due and orde......