on judicial review since it was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. However, it did not occur in a vacuum, as a few state courts had already assumed the power of judicial review to invalidate laws. These include Rutgers v. Waddington (1784), Trevett v. Weeden (1786), and Bayard v. Singleton (1787).
The Rutgers decision involved a British merchant named Waddington, who occupied the property of Rutgers under orders from the British military during the Revolutionary War. The legal issue concerned whether Waddington could be convicted of trespassing for invading the property of an American citizen. Alexander Hamilton defended Waddington, arguing that the New York trespass law must yield to a 1783 treaty between the United States and Great Britain that prohibited the punishment of British sympathizers (called Tories or Loyalists) for conduct during the war.
The Supremacy Clause, Article VI
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary Notwithstanding.”
The Trevett decision concerned the prosecution of butcher James M. Varnum for violating a Rhode Island law that punished those who refused to accept paper money. The Rhode Island court struck down the state law, causing an outrage in the legislature. The legislature called the judges before its body to question them for their act of striking down a state law. The legislature even refused to reappoint four of the five judges.
In Bayard, Elizabeth Bayard sought to recover property confiscated because her father was a Loyalist. The owner of the property, a Mr. Singleton, had purchased the property from the state of North Carolina. The North Carolina court ruled in favor of Bayard, striking down the Confiscation Act, passed by the North Carolina General Assembly during the American Revolution. The judges determined that the confiscation law violated the North Carolina Constitution’s provision for trial by jury and determined that Bayard should have the opportunity to present her case before a jury.
These three decisions served as key precedents on the road to Marbury v. Madison.
Who were the attorneys in Bayard v. Singleton?
Two future U.S. Supreme Court justices served as the attorneys in Bayard v. Singleton. James Iredell, one of the first six justices on the Supreme Court, argued the case for Elizabeth Bayard, while future justice Alfred Moore, appointed to the Court by President John Adams, argued the case for the defendant Singleton and the state.
What does Article III say about the tenure of federal judges?
Article III in effect provides life tenure for federal judges. It sets no time limit but says that federal judges “shall hold their Offices during good behavior.” Article II, Section 4, provides for the removal of “all civil Officers of the United States … on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Why did the Constitution give federal judges life tenure?
The framers gave life tenure to federal judges to ensure an independent judiciary, a judiciary that would not bow to the political pressures of the day. Federal judges often have to make difficult decisions that a significant segment of the public may question quite critically. For this reason, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers (#78) that “the complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution.”
Alexander Hamilton stated (from #78): “If then the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit of judges, which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.”
Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, the nation’s first secretary of the Treasury, recommended that Supreme Court justices receive life tenure in order to ensure “complete independence of the courts.” Library of Congress.
Can federal judges be impeached?
Yes, federal judges can be impeached. The Constitution provides that federal judges “shall hold their Offices during good behavior.” They can be impeached for “treason, Bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” This means that federal judges receive lifetime appointments but can be removed from office for bad conduct. The Constitution gives the U.S. House of Representatives the “sole power of impeachment” and the U.S. Senate “the sole Power to try all impeachments.” It takes a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate for someone to be impeached and removed from office.
Have any federal judges been impeached?
Yes, several federal judges have been impeached by the House and many of those impeached by the House have been convicted in the Senate. The following federal judges have been impeached. Some resigned after the House voted to impeach, others were acquitted in the Senate and some were convicted by the Senate.
John Pickering (1803): U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire (impeached by House and convicted by the Senate)
Samuel Chase (1804–5): Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (impeached by the House in 1804 and acquitted by the Senate in 1805)
CourtSpeak: Modern View on Life Tenure of Supreme Court Justices
Chief Justice William Rehnquist (2004): “By guaranteeing judges life tenure during good behavior, the Constitution tries to insulate judges from the public pressures that may affect elected officials. The Constitution protects judicial independence not to benefit judges, but to promote the rule of law: judges are expected to administer the law fairly, without regard to public reaction….
“A natural consequence of life tenure should be the ability to benefit from informed criticism from legislators, the bar, academe, and the public. When federal judges are criticized for judicial decisions and actions taken in the discharge of their judicial duties, however, it is well to remember [a principle that has] long governed the tenure of federal judges…. Congress’ authority to impeach and remove judges should not extend to decisions from the bench. That principle was established nearly 200 years ago in 1805, after a Congress dominated by Jeffersonian Republicans impeached Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase…. The political precedent set by Chase’s acquittal has governed the use of impeachment to remove federal judges from that day to this: a judge’s judicial acts may not serve as a basis for impeachment. Congress’s authority to impeach and remove judges should not extend to decisions from the bench….”
James H. Peck (1830): U.S. District Court for the District of Missouri (impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate)
West H. Humphreys (1862): U.S. District Court for the Middle, Eastern and Western Districts of Tennessee (impeached by the House and convicted in the Senate)
Mark H. Delahay (1873): U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (impeached by the House and resigned before trial in the Senate)
Charles Swayne (1904): U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (impeached by the House and acquitted in the Senate)
Robert W. Archbald (1912): U.S. Commerce Court (impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate)
George W. English (1926): U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois (impeached by the House and resigned from office)
Harold Louderback (1933): U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate)
Halsted L. Ritter (1936): U.S. District