Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Email
Answers.com

Muskrat v. United States

 
US Supreme Court: Muskrat v. United States

219 U.S. 346 (1911), argued 30 Nov.–2 Dec. 1910, decided 23 Jan. 1911 by vote of 7 to 0; Day for the Court; Van Devanter and Lamar not participating. On 1 March 1907, Congress passed legislation providing that certain named Cherokee Indians, including David Muskrat, were permitted to bring suit against the United States in the Court of Claims, with an appeal to the Supreme Court, to test the constitutionality of previous acts of Congress regulating the lands possessed by the Cherokees. Congress also directed the attorney general to represent the United States in the litigation, and provided that counsel for the Cherokees authorized to initiate the litigation should be paid by the U.S. Treasury.

When litigation reached the Supreme Court, it became obvious that under Article III of the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States courts, including the Supreme Court, could only be exercised in the decision of cases and controversies brought to the courts for resolution. The cases and controversies requirement of Article III, the Court noted, had from almost the beginning of the republic been thought to impose limitations upon the exercise of judicial power by the federal courts. The 1907 act of Congress, the Court held, had created a friendly suit, lacking any adverse clash of legal interests between two parties, which a real case or controversy required. The Muskrat case was thus not within the Court's legitimate jurisdiction under Article III and was therefore dismissed. Muskrat v. United States remains a classic example of the limitations imposed by the cases and controversies requirement upon the exercise of federal judicial power.

See also Native Americans.

— Richard C. Cortner

Search unanswered questions...
Enter a question here...
Search: All sources Community Q&A Reference topics
Wikipedia: Muskrat v. United States
Top
Muskrat v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 30, 1910
Decided January 23, 1911
Full case name David Muskrat and J. Henry Dick v. United States
Citations 219 U.S. 346 (more)
31 S. Ct. 250; 55 L. Ed. 246; 1911 U.S. LEXIS 1641
Prior history Dismissed, 44 Ct. Cl. 137 (1909)
Subsequent history None
Holding
Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the Court to actual controversies between adverse parties; there is no controversy or adversity where an interested party colludes with a disinterested party to bring the suit solely for the purpose of determining the constitutionality of a particular act of Congress. Court of Claims affirmed.
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority Day, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. III

Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911)[1], is a case that appears in virtually every constitutional law casebook published, because of its delineation of the authority of United States federal courts to hear certain kinds of cases.

Contents

Facts

In this case, Congress passed a statute permitting certain Native Americans to bring suits against the United States to determine the constitutionality of a law allocating tribal lands, and providing that Counsel for both sides were to be paid from the United States Treasury. Several cases were brought pursuant to this statute, including suits brought by David Muskrat and J. Henry Dick opposing the partition of Indian lands, and by another pair, William Brown and Levi B. Gritts, opposing a prohibition against the sale of certain Indian lands.

Result

The United States Supreme Court refused to allow the case to be heard, maintaining that, though the United States was named as a defendant, the case in question was not an actual controversy: rather, the statute was merely devised to test the constitutionality of a certain type of legislation, and the Court's ruling would be nothing more than an advisory opinion; therefore, it dismissed the suit for failing to present a "case or controversy", as required by Article III of the United States Constitution.

Later developments

Although this decision remains good law, its importance has been diminished by the Supreme Court's approval of the declaratory judgment act, which permits a party to seek a declaration of rights against another party, even where no affirmative relief (e.g. damages or an injunction) is being sought. In a declaratory judgment action, if under the facts as proved, there is some possibility of a future need for relief as among the parties, a declaratory judgment may be entered.

See also

External links

  1. ^ 219 U.S. 346 (Text of the opinion on Findlaw.com)

 
 

 

Copyrights:

US Supreme Court. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Copyright © 1992, 2005 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.  Read more
Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Muskrat v. United States" Read more