Muskrat v. United States

Muskrat v. United States
Decided January 23, 1911
Surname: David Muskrat and J. Henry Dick v. United States Quoted: 219 U.S. 346 (1911); 31 S. Ct. 250; 55 L. Ed. 246; 1911 US LEXIS 1641 Facts: A federal law empowered a Native American group to review the constitutionality of an older law in the Supreme Court.
statement
The constitution allows a review of the constitutionality of laws only in the context of a specific legal dispute. In this case, the plaintiff and the defendant have cooperated to achieve a jointly desired goal, for which the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction.
Positions
Majority opinion: Day , White (Chair), Harlan , McKenna , Holmes , Lurton , Hughes , Van Devanter , Lamar Dissenting opinion: Opinion: Not involved:
Applied Law
United States Constitution, Art. III

The decision in the Muskrat v. United States was a major constitutional ruling by the United States Supreme Court denying a general authority to review laws for their constitutionality outside of a specific legal dispute.

background

On July 1, 1902, the United States Congress passed law that determined the distribution of land within the Cherokee nation . To test the constitutionality of the law, Congress passed a budget bill in 1907 to provide the Cherokee with funds to reimburse attorneys' fees and court fees. This should give the opportunity to initiate proceedings before the United States Court of Claims with a subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court. Several people filed lawsuits as a result of this law, including David Muskrat and J. Henry Dick, who opposed the division of the land, and William Brown and Levi B. Gritts, who opposed a sales ban.

decision

The court ruled unanimously that it had no jurisdiction over such proceedings. Judge William R. Day referred in the judgment he wrote to the third article of the United States Constitution , which limits the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to specific legal disputes. Although the United States is appearing as the defendant in the proceedings, the interests of the two parties to the dispute were not conflicting and therefore not really at issue. Rather, the aim of the proceedings was to obtain the opinion of the court with regard to the constitutionality of the law, similar to an abstract review of norms , without the result in this case having concrete legal consequences. Since the constitution does not provide for such a competence, the case must be rejected.

swell

1. ↑ An act to provide for the allotment of the lands of the Cherokee Nation, for the disposition of town sites therein, and for other purposes .. 32 Stat., 716., Ch. 1375
2. ↑ An act making appropriations for the current and contingent expenses of the Indian Department, for fulfilling treaty stipulations with various Indian tribes, and for other purposes, for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and eight .. 34 Stat., 1015. , Ch. 2285
3. ^ Justification of the judgment, 219 US 346 (1911)