341:"There is certainly nothing in the circumstances under which our Constitution was formed, nothing in the history of the times, which would justify the opinion that the confidence reposed in the States was so implicit as to leave in them and their tribunals the power of resisting or defeating, in the form of law, the legitimate measures of the Union." The Court said that the Constitution's framers had decided to "confer on the judicial department the power of construing the Constitution and laws of the Union in every case, in the last resort, and of preserving them from all violation from every quarter, so far as judicial decisions can preserve them."
31:
228:
255:, Maryland. The Cohen firm was a leading vendor of lottery tickets in the United States through its offices in New York, Philadelphia, Charleston, and Norfolk and nationwide through the mail. The firm had a strong reputation in an otherwise-unsavory field and was known for quick payouts to winners. Their reputation helped the firm later become successful in the insurance and banking fields. The firm had been established in 1812 by an older brother,
476:
325:
argued that the U.S. Constitution does not give the
Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over cases in which a state is a party. In effect, Virginia argued that its decision was final and could not be reviewed by the federal courts even though the decision involved the interpretation and application of an act of Congress. Virginia asserted that it had an unreviewable right to interpret and apply federal law as it saw fit.
329:
found that the U.S. Constitution provides no exceptions to this grant of jurisdiction for cases arising in the state courts or for cases in which a state is a party. Therefore, under its language, all cases arising under federal law are within its grant of appellate jurisdiction. That conclusion was reinforced by the
336:
The Court stated that if state court decisions involving federal law were unreviewable by the federal courts, each state could prevent the federal government from executing federal laws in that state and thus allow each state a veto power over federal law. The Court found that to be inconsistent with
353:
Having found that it had jurisdiction, the
Supreme Court upheld the Cohens' convictions. The Court found that Congress did not intend to authorize the sale of National Lottery tickets outside the District of Columbia. Therefore, there was no conflict between the act of Congress authorizing a lottery
324:
was the preliminary issue of whether the
Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal in a criminal case decided by the courts of Virginia. Virginia argued that the U.S. Constitution does not give the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over criminal judgments by the state courts. Virginia also
312:
The
Supreme Court concluded with two opinions on this case that were published together. The first opinion, containing the major rulings of constitutional and historical significance, concerned Virginia's motion to dismiss for purported lack of US Supreme Court jurisdiction. The ruling was issued on
349:
Accordingly, the
Supreme Court found no restriction or limitation on the plain language of the Constitution granting it appellate jurisdiction over all cases arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. The Court, therefore, had jurisdiction over the appeal from the Virginia courts.
328:
The
Supreme Court relied on Article III, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution, which grants the Supreme Court jurisdiction in "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." The Court
316:
Having resolved the significant jurisdictional issues, the Court issued an opinion the next day on the merits of the case: it construed the
Congressional statute as authorizing a lottery only in the City of Washington, District of Columbia. (At the time, the District of Columbia consisted of two
308:
The state courts found that the
Virginia law prohibiting sale of out-of-state lotteries could be enforced, notwithstanding the act of Congress authorizing the D.C. lottery. The Cohens appealed to the United States Supreme Court by arguing that their conduct was protected by the Act of Congress
269:
The issue was significant as "lotteries were one of the chief means by which governments raised capital in the" early 19th century. The case challenged the "free flow of commerce" embodied in the U.S. Constitution and could have emboldened other states to challenge the sale of
National Lottery
345:
The Court also said that unless state court decisions involving federal law could be reviewed by federal courts, there would be as many interpretations of federal law as there are states. Quoting "Federalist No. 80," the Court found that the
Constitution was not intended to create "a hydra in
346:
government from which nothing but contradiction and confusion can proceed." Rather, relying on "Federalist No. 82," the Court found that the framers intended for the Supreme Court to have appellate jurisdiction over state court cases involving federal law.
317:
cities, the other being Alexandria. In the 1840s, it was retroceded to the State of Virginia so that its major slave market could be operated outside the federal capital.) It upheld the convictions of the Cohens in Virginia.
243:
to raise money for the District of Columbia that was conducted by the municipal government. Meanwhile, Virginia had established its own state lotteries and passed a law to prohibit the sale of out-of-state lottery tickets.
266:
On June 1, 1820, both Cohens were charged by authorities in Norfolk with selling tickets in Virginia for the National Lottery. The brothers were convicted in a local court and fined $ 100.
612:
200:
matters if defendants claim that their constitutional rights have been violated. The Court had previously asserted a similar jurisdiction over civil cases involving U.S. parties.
499:
394:
203:
The defendants were members of a prominent Baltimore banking family. A U.S. senator and two U.S. representatives served as attorneys for the opposing sides. The two defendants,
189:
491:
386:
363:
73:
592:
102:
State laws in opposition to federal laws are void. The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction and makes the final decision for any U.S. case.
602:
617:
587:
337:
the language and the intent of the U.S. Constitution, including the explicit grant of judicial power to the federal courts:
607:
597:
193:
35:
240:
232:
259:, who brought each of his five brothers into the firm. He later was elected to and served as a president of the
551:
289:
137:
196:
that is most notable for the Court's assertion of its power to review state supreme court decisions in
480:
533:
313:
March 2, 1821, and asserted the Supreme Court's constitutional right to jurisdiction in this case.
53:
515:
133:
354:
there and Virginia's statute prohibiting sale of out-of-state lotteries within its boundaries.
260:
443:
495:
390:
65:
288:
from New York. Pinkney, an acquaintance of the Cohen family and a strong proponent of the
8:
285:
256:
506:
293:
125:
542:
398:
435:
248:
212:
208:
456:
330:
297:
277:
216:
68:
227:
569:
281:
149:
581:
117:
80:
274:
204:
197:
157:
524:
145:
88:
252:
300:
campaign on behalf of the federal government's powers in this case.
273:
The Cohens hired two of the country's top lawyers for their appeal:
560:
475:
84:
30:
333:
of Article VI, which makes federal law superior to state law.
207:
and Philip I. Cohen, would later rise to the positions of
442:, New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1996, pp. 456-459
231:
1818 portrait of Mendes I. Cohen by artist Joseph Wood.
613:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Marshall Court
247:
Philip and Mendes Cohen were brothers and managed the
364:
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 19
579:
251:branch of Cohens Lottery and Exchange Office of
593:United States Eleventh Amendment case law
431:
429:
427:
226:
502:) 264 (1821) is available from:
425:
423:
421:
419:
417:
415:
413:
411:
409:
407:
580:
452:
450:
239:Congress passed a bill to establish a
188:, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821), is a
18:1821 United States Supreme Court case
603:Criminal cases in the Marshall Court
404:
447:
303:
13:
440:John Marshall: Definer Of A Nation
194:Supreme Court of the United States
36:Supreme Court of the United States
24:Cohens v. Commonwealth of Virginia
14:
629:
618:United States Supreme Court cases
468:
474:
284:, who had recently retired as a
270:tickets in their jurisdictions.
29:
233:Smithsonian American Art Museum
588:1821 in United States case law
376:
309:authorizing the D.C. lottery.
1:
369:
222:
52:P.J. Cohen and M.J. Cohen v.
459:The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia
7:
357:
290:necessary and proper clause
10:
634:
570:Oyez (oral argument audio)
608:Legal history of Virginia
598:Supremacy Clause case law
170:
165:
111:
106:
101:
96:
60:
47:
42:
28:
23:
138:H. Brockholst Livingston
54:Commonwealth of Virginia
343:
261:Baltimore City Council
236:
339:
230:
43:Decided March 3, 1821
292:and the doctrine of
174:Marshall, joined by
552:Library of Congress
286:U.S. Representative
257:Jacob I. Cohen, Jr.
488:Cohens v. Virginia
481:Cohens v. Virginia
383:Cohens v. Virginia
322:Cohens v. Virginia
320:The main issue in
294:sovereign immunity
237:
185:Cohens v. Virginia
126:Bushrod Washington
122:Associate Justices
479:Works related to
436:Jean Edward Smith
249:Norfolk, Virginia
213:Maryland Delegate
209:U.S. Army Colonel
181:
180:
625:
574:
568:
565:
559:
556:
550:
547:
541:
538:
532:
529:
523:
520:
514:
511:
505:
478:
462:
454:
445:
433:
402:
380:
331:Supremacy Clause
304:Judicial history
298:public relations
280:of Maryland and
241:National Lottery
107:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
20:
633:
632:
628:
627:
626:
624:
623:
622:
578:
577:
572:
566:
563:
557:
554:
548:
545:
539:
536:
530:
527:
521:
518:
512:
509:
503:
471:
466:
465:
455:
448:
434:
405:
381:
377:
372:
360:
306:
278:William Pinkney
225:
217:U.S. Postmaster
205:Mendes I. Cohen
148:
136:
134:William Johnson
92:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
631:
621:
620:
615:
610:
605:
600:
595:
590:
576:
575:
534:Google Scholar
484:
470:
469:External links
467:
464:
463:
446:
403:
374:
373:
371:
368:
367:
366:
359:
356:
305:
302:
296:, organized a
282:David A. Ogden
224:
221:
215:(Mendes), and
179:
178:
172:
168:
167:
163:
162:
161:
160:
150:Gabriel Duvall
123:
120:
115:
109:
108:
104:
103:
99:
98:
94:
93:
78:
62:
58:
57:
49:
48:Full case name
45:
44:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
630:
619:
616:
614:
611:
609:
606:
604:
601:
599:
596:
594:
591:
589:
586:
585:
583:
571:
562:
553:
544:
535:
526:
517:
516:CourtListener
508:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
483:at Wikisource
482:
477:
473:
472:
461:
460:
453:
451:
444:
441:
437:
432:
430:
428:
426:
424:
422:
420:
418:
416:
414:
412:
410:
408:
400:
396:
392:
388:
384:
379:
375:
365:
362:
361:
355:
351:
347:
342:
338:
334:
332:
326:
323:
318:
314:
310:
301:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
279:
276:
271:
267:
264:
262:
258:
254:
250:
245:
242:
234:
229:
220:
218:
214:
210:
206:
201:
199:
195:
191:
190:landmark case
187:
186:
177:
173:
169:
164:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
131:
127:
124:
121:
119:
118:John Marshall
116:
114:Chief Justice
113:
112:
110:
105:
100:
95:
90:
86:
82:
76:
75:
70:
67:
63:
59:
56:
55:
50:
46:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
487:
458:
439:
401: (1821).
382:
378:
352:
348:
344:
340:
335:
327:
321:
319:
315:
311:
307:
275:U.S. Senator
272:
268:
265:
246:
238:
202:
198:criminal law
184:
183:
182:
175:
166:Case opinion
158:Joseph Story
153:
141:
129:
72:
51:
15:
146:Thomas Todd
582:Categories
561:OpenJurist
370:References
223:Background
219:(Philip).
89:U.S. LEXIS
87:257; 1821
253:Baltimore
176:unanimous
61:Citations
486:Text of
358:See also
171:Majority
525:Findlaw
507:Cornell
457:Cohen,
192:by the
97:Holding
83:264; 5
573:
567:
564:
558:
555:
549:
546:
543:Justia
540:
537:
531:
528:
522:
519:
513:
510:
504:
500:Wheat.
397:)
395:Wheat.
385:,
156:
154:·
152:
144:
142:·
140:
132:
130:·
128:
85:L. Ed.
81:Wheat.
494:
389:
496:U.S.
391:U.S.
211:and
74:more
66:U.S.
498:(6
399:264
393:(6
91:362
69:264
64:19
584::
492:19
490:,
449:^
438:,
406:^
387:19
263:.
79:6
235:.
77:)
71:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
