Hylton v. United States

3 Dall. (3 U.S.) 171 (1796), argued 23–25 Feb. 1796, decided 8 Mar. 1796 by vote of 3 to 0; seriatim opinions by Iredell, Paterson, and Chase.

In 1794, Congress levied a carriage tax on passenger vehicles. The U.S. government sued Daniel Hylton in the federal circuit court of Virginia for nonpayment of the required duty. Hylton claimed that the levy was a “direct tax” within the meaning of Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, which prohibits Congress from levying direct taxes not apportioned according to the population of the several states. The controversy touched the sensitive question of the revenue‐raising power of the new national government. The circuit court was divided on the question, but Hylton confessed to judgment (admitted liability) in order to test the constitutionality of the tax by an appeal to the Supreme Court. The three justices who heard the case—Samuel Chase, William Paterson, and James Iredell—unanimously agreed that the carriage levy was an indirect tax and, therefore, not proscribed by Article I. The Court's view on the tax issue remained the law until the Income Tax Cases of 1895 (see Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.). Hylton was also significant because it implicitly raised the issue of the Supreme Court's power of judicial review. While the members of the Hylton court never addressed that issue directly, the justices appeared to assume that they had the power to nullify unconstitutional acts of Congress. Justice Chase declared that if the Court did have such power, however, he would exercise it only “in a very clear case” (p. 175). Not until Chief Justice John Marshall's celebrated opinion in Marbury v. Madison (1803) did the Supreme Court finally explain its power of judicial review under the Constitution.

See also Taxing and Spending Clause.

— George Dargo

• 3 Dall. 171 (1796)
• Vote: 3–0
• For the Court: Seriatim opinions by Iredell, Paterson, and Chase
• Not participating: Cushing, Wilson, and Ellsworth

In 1794 Congress passed a law to tax carriages used as passenger vehicles. Daniel Hylton of Virginia refused to pay the tax, and the U.S. government sued Hylton for nonpayment of taxes.

The Issue

Daniel Hylton said that the federal carriage tax was a direct tax of the kind prohibited by Article 1, Section 9, of the Constitution. Did Congress have the power to levy a carriage tax on passenger vehicles?

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court upheld Congress's power to tax carriages used as passenger vehicles. The carriage tax law was an indirect tax, said the Court, and was not prohibited by Article 1, Section 9, of the Constitution. Justice Paterson wrote, “All taxes on expenses or consumptions are indirect taxes.”

Significance

This was the first time that the Supreme Court made a judgment about whether an act of Congress was constitutional. By upholding the federal carriage tax, the Court implied that it had the power to overturn it. The justices did not directly discuss the power of judicial review—the power of the Court to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional, or in violation of the Constitution, and therefore void. However, they seemed to believe that they had the power to nullify acts of Congress that conflicted with the higher law of the Constitution. Justice Samuel Chase wrote that he would use this power of judicial review only “in a very clear case.”

In 1803 Chief Justice John Marshall used the case of Marbury v. Madison to explain and justify the Court's power of judicial review of acts of Congress.

See also Judicial power; Judicial review; Marbury v. Madison

Hylton v. United States (1796). The question of whether a tax on carriages imposed by an act of Congress (5 June 1794) was a direct tax and therefore subject to the constitutional rule of apportionment to the states, was decided in the negative. Three justices—Samuel Chase, William Paterson, and James Iredell—sitting without their colleagues, decided unanimously that the tax was an excise or duty and not a direct tax. The case is chiefly important for the implied assumption that the Court had the authority to review the constitutionality of an act of Congress.

Bibliography

Brown, Roger H. Redeeming the Republic: Federalists, Taxation, and the Origins of the Constitution. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.

Currie, David P. The Constitution in Congress: The Federalist Period, 1789–1801. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997.

Hylton v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 23, 1796 Decided March 8, 1796
Full case name: Daniel Hylton, Plaintiff in Error v. The United States Citations: 3 U.S. 171; 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 171; 1 L. Ed. 556; 1796 U.S. LEXIS 397; 2 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 2155 Prior history: Defendant convicted, Circuit Court for the District of Virginia Subsequent history: None
Holding
A tax on the possession of goods is not a "direct" tax, which must be apportioned under Article I of the Constitution.
Court membership
Chief Justice: Oliver Ellsworth Associate Justices: James Wilson, William Cushing, James Iredell, William Paterson, Samuel Chase
Case opinions
Seriatim opinion by: Chase Seriatim opinion by: Paterson Seriatim opinion by: Iredell Seriatim opinion by: Wilson Ellsworth and Cushing took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. I

Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796)^[1], was an early United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a tax on carriages was not in violation of the apportionment clause. The Justices at the time, rather than issue an opinion of the Court, instead issued seriatim opinions, with each writing separately and reading their own analysis in turn. This case was the first time Judicial Review came up in the United States Supreme Court. The Court heard the case about upholding the federal carriage tax, and found it constitutional. The power of Judicial Review was not controversial until Marbury v. Madison in 1803.

See also

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 3

References

• Jean Edward Smith. John Marshall: Definer Of A Nation. New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1996.
• Georgia Yvonne Hikashemakel. Supreme Court Cases: in the late 1700s. Baltimore: Johnothan Damons & Richard Freeburns Institute, 1998.[2]

External link

• ^ 3 U.S. 171 (Text of the case from FindLaw.)

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)