Luther v. Borden
 | |
| Luther v. Borden | |
| Reference: 48 U.S. 1 | |
| Term: 1849 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Argued: Jan 21-28, 1848 Decided: Jan 3, 1849 | |
| Outcome | |
| United States Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island affirmed | |
| Majority | |
| John McLean • Samuel Nelson • Robert Cooper Grier • Roger Brooke Taney • James Moore Wayne | |
| Dissenting | |
| Levi Woodbury | |
| Not participating | |
| John Catron • Peter Vivian Daniel • John McKinley | |
Luther v. Borden was a case decided on January 3, 1849, by the United States Supreme Court that held that the U.S. Supreme Court does not have the authority to decide political questions and that those questions are reserved to the U.S. Congress or executive branch.[1]
Why it matters: The Supreme Court ruled that it could not determine the legitimate state government because it would involve a political question. This doctrine has been referred to as the political question doctrine. The majority opinion also argued that state sovereignty resides in the people and that they may alter their form of government by calling a convention, but whether the form of government has been changed is a question that cannot be settled by the courts and is reserved to the executive or legislative branches. To read more about the impact of Luther v. Borden, click here.
Background
Historical background
Rhode Island did not draft a new constitution after the American Revolution but instead continued to operate under its 1663 Royal Charter form of government. The Royal Charter of 1663 did not contain a provision for its amendment and it contained a property requirement to vote. A number of citizens began to hold meetings in 1841 and voted to hold a convention to draft a new constitution. The convention met, framed the constitution, and organized a statewide referendum allowing all white males above the age of 21 to vote on the new constitution. The new constitution received a majority of the vote among land owners and newly enfranchised voters.[2]
Elections were held for governor in May 1842 and the convention proceeded to organize the government under the new state constitution. The governor, according to the Royal Charter government, passed an act declaring the state under martial law.[3][4]
Legal background
After the governor declared the state under martial law, Borden and some members of the state militia arrived at Martin Luther's home to arrest him because he had been a leader in the movement to create a new state constitution. They entered his home without a warrant in order to arrest him, arguing that they had the authority to do so because the state was under martial law and Luther intended to overthrow the government. Luther argued that Borden did not have the authority to enter his home and arrest him. Further, he argued that the old government was not a republican government and had no authority because it violated the guarantee clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says that the federal government "shall guarantee to every State in this Union, a Republican Form of Government."[1]
Oral argument
Oral argument was held from January 21, 1849, through January 28, 1849. The case was decided on January 3, 1849.[3]
Decision
The Supreme Court decided 5-1 that it does not have the constitutional authority to determine whether a state government has been lawfully established.
Justice Roger Taney delivered the opinion of the 5-1 Supreme Court. He was joined by Justices John McLean, Samuel Nelson, Robert Cooper Grier, and James Moore Wayne.[4]
Justices Levi Woodbury wrote a dissenting opinion.[4]
Justices John Catron, Peter Vivian Daniel, and John McKinley did not participate in this case.[4]
Opinions
Opinion of the court
Chief Justice Taney delivered the majority opinion for the 5-1 Supreme Court and held that courts do not have the authority to declare whether or not a state government has been lawfully established. Taney argued that determining the legitimacy of state governments involves a political question and he argued that the courts do not have the authority to determine political disputes. Justice Taney's majority opinion established the political question doctrine, which states that the courts do not have the power to answer political disputes. Taney argued that only the president and Congress have the constitutional power to determine whether a state government has been lawfully established, not the courts.[1]
Furthermore, the majority ruled in favor of Borden and argued that the use of martial law to arrest Luther was lawful:[1]
| “ | And unquestionably a State may use its military power to put down an armed insurrection too strong to be controlled by the civil authority. The power is essential to the existence of every government, essential to the preservation of order and free institutions, and is as necessary to the States of this Union as to any other government. | ” |
Dissenting opinion
Justice Levi Woodbury wrote a dissenting opinion and agreed with the majority that the Supreme Court did not have the power to determine the legitimacy of state governments, but he argued that Rhode Island's chartered government did not have the constitutional right to declare martial law while the citizens were attempting to change the state government through a nonviolent political process. Further, Justice Woodbury argued that Rhode Island's use of martial law to break into Luther's home was unjust.[1]
Impact
| Federalism |
|---|
|
| •Key terms • Court cases •Major arguments • State responses to federal mandates • Federalism by the numbers • Index of articles about federalism |
The Supreme Court's decision established the political question doctrine that states that United States courts cannot decide questions that are political in nature or arise out of a political dispute. After Luther v. Borden was decided, the government established by the Royal Charter of 1663 continued to be recognized as the legitimate government of the state of Rhode Island.[1]
The U.S. Supreme Court has invoked the political question doctrine when deciding cases having to do with apportionment. For example, in Colgrove v. Green (1946), the Supreme Court cited the political question doctrine and ruled that the issue of apportionment was non-justiciable because it involved a political question. In Baker v. Carr (1962), the court ruled that apportionment cases could be decided by the Supreme Court.
See also
External links
- Full text of case syllabus and opinions (Justia)
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Search Google News for this topic
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 [www.sites.gsu.edu/us-constipedia/luther-v-borden-1849/ GSU, Luther v. Borden, accessed October 6, 2022]
- ↑ New England, Dorr Rebellion, accessed October 6, 2022
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Oyez, Luther v. Borden, accessed October 6, 2022 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "oyez" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Lexis Nexis, Luther v. Borden, accessed October 6, 2022
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
| ||||||||||||||||||||
