Petitioners
Jeremiah S. Black, U.S. Attorney General; Stephen Ableman
Respondent
Sherman Booth
Petitioners' Claim
Booth, who had been freed by the Wisconsin State Supreme Court, should servethe sentence imposed by a federal court.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioners
Jeremiah S. Black
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
No counsel appeared for the respondent.
Justices for the Court
John Archibald Campbell, John Catron, Nathan Clifford, Peter Vivian Daniel, Robert Cooper Grier, John McLean, Samuel Nelson, Roger Brooke Taney (writing for the Court), James Moore Wayne
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
7 March 1859
Decision
A state court cannot grant a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner arrested under the authority of the United States and in federal custody.
Significance
The Ableman decision emphasized our dual form of government and the independence of state and federal courts from one another. It is illegal for state officials to interfere with United States officers acting under federal laws. Ironically, while Ableman arose from arguments over the proslavery Fugitive Slave Law, this same principle of federal judicial supremacy was used to override state efforts to preserve racial segregation during the 1960s.
The Ableman cases reflected the dramatic events and fiery controversies that immediately preceded and led to the U.S. Civil War. Benammi S. Garlandowned a slave, Joshua Glover, who worked as the foreman on Garland's farm near St. Louis, Missouri. In 1852, Glover escaped and fled to Wisconsin.
Joshua Glover Is Saved from the Slave Catchers
Glover found work at a sawmill near Racine, Wisconsin, where Garland discovered him. On 10 March 1854, Glover and two black friends were playing cards ina cabin on the outskirts of Racine. Garland appeared at the cabin with two U.S. deputy Marshalls and four other men. Struggling with his attackers, Gloverwas badly hurt. He was handcuffed and taken to a jail in Milwaukee. (At thistime, the federal government had no jails of its own and borrowed prison facilities from state and local governments.)
Abolitionists in Milwaukee soon learned of Glover's arrest. Among their leaders was Sherman M. Booth, the fiery editor of an abolitionist newspaper. Boothrode throughout the city, stopping at each street corner to rise in his saddle and shout, "Freemen! To the rescue! Slave catchers are in our midst! Be atthe court-house at two o'clock!"
On the evening of 11 March, a large crowd gathered outside the Milwaukee courthouse. Booth gave a passionate speech attacking the return of fugitive slaves. The mob then broke down the door, took Glover out, and put him a ship leaving for Canada. Throughout Wisconsin and other northern states, abolitionistscheered his release.
On 15 March, U.S. Marshall Stephen V. R. Ableman arrested Booth under a warrant issued by a federal court commissioner. Booth was charged under the Fugitive Slave Law with having aided a slave's escape. Because he refused to provide bail money, the commissioner ordered him held for trial before the U.S. District Court of Wisconsin.
Wisconsin Nullifies Federal Laws
On 27 May, while the state supreme court was on vacation, Booth applied to Associate Justice Abram Smith for a writ of habeas corpus. Booth asked to be released because he was being held under an unconstitutional law. Justice Smith ordered Booth's release on 7 June. Smith asserted the state's right to intervene, and declared the Fugitive Slave Law unconstitutional because itdenied trial by jury to fugitive slaves, thus taking their liberty without due process of law. In July, at Marshall Ableman's request, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed Justice Smith's decision and upheld it. Ableman appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In January 1855, while this appeal was pending, Booth was rearrested on a newwarrant from the U.S. District Court for Wisconsin. He was tried by jury, convicted, sentenced to one month in jail, and fined $1,000. Once more Booth appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. On 3 February, the court freed him fora second time, again ruling that he was illegally confined under an unconstitutional law. It declared that the state, as sovereign, had the power to protect its citizens against a wrongful federal law.
Without using the word, the Wisconsin court had advanced an extreme statementof the "nullification" doctrine--the theory that a state could render congressional laws null and void within its territory. John Calhoun of South Carolina had originally advanced this nullification doctrine in 1828. Four years later, a state convention had declared the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 null and void in South Carolina. Thus nullification is sometimes considered a Southern state's right. In this case, however, it was the northerners of Wisconsin thatnullified a federal law (the Fugitive Slave Law) because of their anti-slavery convictions.
The U.S. attorney for Wisconsin appealed regarding Booth's second release, and the Supreme Court combined the two Booth cases into one. Although the defiant Wisconsin court refused to send its records to Washington, the U.S. Supreme Court obtained a copy by subterfuge.
Stung by the criticism over its Dred Scott decision, the Court delayedhearings on the Booth cases until January 1859. U.S. Attorney GeneralJeremiah S. Black appeared for the United States and, nominally, also for Ableman, who had long since retired from the office of federal marshall. No oneappeared for Booth and the state of Wisconsin, who did not recognize the Supreme Court's authority in this case.
Federal Courts Are Supreme over State Courts
Writing for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice Taney presented his decision inMarch 1859. Taney forcefully upheld the supremacy of the federal government and the federal courts. By using the device of habeas corpus, Taney declared, the Wisconsin Supreme Court had nullified the judgment and sentence ofa U.S. district court. In so doing, it had asserted that state courts were supreme over federal courts. If state courts could nullify the Fugitive SlaveLaw, they also could nullify any other federal law. This inevitably, Taney reasoned, would lead to chaos through conflicting decisions in various states.
Trying to prevent local interests, passions, and prejudices from dominating,Taney continued, the founders had made the federal government supreme withinthe sphere of action assigned to it. This supremacy could be maintained onlyif federal judicial power were supreme over state courts. State governments should not be jealous of this federal supremacy, for it was given by the Constitution, created by the people of all the states.
Taney admitted that a state court could use the process of habeas corpus to inquire into any and all imprisonments. But, as soon as a state judge or court is told "that the party is in custody under the authority of the United States, they can proceed no further." This was the heart of the matter. Afederal prisoner is "within the dominion and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States."
Even if a federal court ruled wrongly regarding federal laws, only a higher federal court could correct it. A state court had no authority to correct proceedings in a national court. However, for the record, Taney stated that the Fugitive Slave Law of 1859 was fully authorized by the U.S. Constitution.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court refused even to acknowledge Taney's decision. Booth finally was arrested in March 1860 and imprisoned in the customs house inMilwaukee. Because he would not pay his fine, he remained in jail until earlyin 1861. A state court commissioner issued a writ of habeas corpus, but the Marshall ignored it.
Although jurisdictional law sometimes may seem arcane, Justice Taney's Ableman decision was of profound significance in affirming national sovereignty and the supremacy of federal law. But no Supreme Court decision could compel the abolitionists to obey laws they considered unjust. Despite Taney's efforts, only a war could resolve the deep moral divisions of slavery.
Related Cases
Belva Ann Lockwood (1830-1917)
At the time of the Ableman cases, very few women were able to be involved in the practice of law. But in 1879, Belva Ann Lockwood drafted a law, which was later passed by Congress, that admitted women to practice before theSupreme Court. She then became the first woman to put the law into action asthe first woman lawyer to practice before the Court.
Lockwood was originally a teacher when she moved to Washington, D.C. to pursue a legal career. She had already had a full life, though she was only 30. Lockwood did not pursue a higher education for herself when young. In fact, itwas not until the death of her husband left her in need of supporting her young daughter that she decided she needed further schooling to make ends meet.She graduated school with honors as a teacher, and started work at the prestigious Lockport Union School. It was in her time as a teacher that she first became known as a feminist, as she encouraged the girls to polish their publicspeaking skills At this time Lockwood discovered and fostered her interest in the law and the political activism of women such as Susan B. Anthony. It was these interests that drew her to Washington, D.C. in the first place.
Lockwood gained entry to the newly founded National University Law School, where she quickly realized her dream of becoming a lawyer. The work was hard, and the treatment in the male-dominated field was harsh, but Lockwood made itthrough the course, ultimately being the only student (of the 14 women she started with) to receive her diploma in the end. This unequal treatment only served to strengthen Lockwood's feminist determination, and led her hand in many of her legal battles. She worked tirelessly during her life for women's suffrage, equal rights, and Native American rights.
Sources
http://www.stanford.edu/group/WLHP/papers/lockwood.htm
http://www.netsrq.com/~dbois/lockwood.html
Jeremiah S. Black, U.S. Attorney General; Stephen Ableman
Respondent
Sherman Booth
Petitioners' Claim
Booth, who had been freed by the Wisconsin State Supreme Court, should servethe sentence imposed by a federal court.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioners
Jeremiah S. Black
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
No counsel appeared for the respondent.
Justices for the Court
John Archibald Campbell, John Catron, Nathan Clifford, Peter Vivian Daniel, Robert Cooper Grier, John McLean, Samuel Nelson, Roger Brooke Taney (writing for the Court), James Moore Wayne
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
7 March 1859
Decision
A state court cannot grant a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner arrested under the authority of the United States and in federal custody.
Significance
The Ableman decision emphasized our dual form of government and the independence of state and federal courts from one another. It is illegal for state officials to interfere with United States officers acting under federal laws. Ironically, while Ableman arose from arguments over the proslavery Fugitive Slave Law, this same principle of federal judicial supremacy was used to override state efforts to preserve racial segregation during the 1960s.
The Ableman cases reflected the dramatic events and fiery controversies that immediately preceded and led to the U.S. Civil War. Benammi S. Garlandowned a slave, Joshua Glover, who worked as the foreman on Garland's farm near St. Louis, Missouri. In 1852, Glover escaped and fled to Wisconsin.
Joshua Glover Is Saved from the Slave Catchers
Glover found work at a sawmill near Racine, Wisconsin, where Garland discovered him. On 10 March 1854, Glover and two black friends were playing cards ina cabin on the outskirts of Racine. Garland appeared at the cabin with two U.S. deputy Marshalls and four other men. Struggling with his attackers, Gloverwas badly hurt. He was handcuffed and taken to a jail in Milwaukee. (At thistime, the federal government had no jails of its own and borrowed prison facilities from state and local governments.)
Abolitionists in Milwaukee soon learned of Glover's arrest. Among their leaders was Sherman M. Booth, the fiery editor of an abolitionist newspaper. Boothrode throughout the city, stopping at each street corner to rise in his saddle and shout, "Freemen! To the rescue! Slave catchers are in our midst! Be atthe court-house at two o'clock!"
On the evening of 11 March, a large crowd gathered outside the Milwaukee courthouse. Booth gave a passionate speech attacking the return of fugitive slaves. The mob then broke down the door, took Glover out, and put him a ship leaving for Canada. Throughout Wisconsin and other northern states, abolitionistscheered his release.
On 15 March, U.S. Marshall Stephen V. R. Ableman arrested Booth under a warrant issued by a federal court commissioner. Booth was charged under the Fugitive Slave Law with having aided a slave's escape. Because he refused to provide bail money, the commissioner ordered him held for trial before the U.S. District Court of Wisconsin.
Wisconsin Nullifies Federal Laws
On 27 May, while the state supreme court was on vacation, Booth applied to Associate Justice Abram Smith for a writ of habeas corpus. Booth asked to be released because he was being held under an unconstitutional law. Justice Smith ordered Booth's release on 7 June. Smith asserted the state's right to intervene, and declared the Fugitive Slave Law unconstitutional because itdenied trial by jury to fugitive slaves, thus taking their liberty without due process of law. In July, at Marshall Ableman's request, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed Justice Smith's decision and upheld it. Ableman appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In January 1855, while this appeal was pending, Booth was rearrested on a newwarrant from the U.S. District Court for Wisconsin. He was tried by jury, convicted, sentenced to one month in jail, and fined $1,000. Once more Booth appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. On 3 February, the court freed him fora second time, again ruling that he was illegally confined under an unconstitutional law. It declared that the state, as sovereign, had the power to protect its citizens against a wrongful federal law.
Without using the word, the Wisconsin court had advanced an extreme statementof the "nullification" doctrine--the theory that a state could render congressional laws null and void within its territory. John Calhoun of South Carolina had originally advanced this nullification doctrine in 1828. Four years later, a state convention had declared the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 null and void in South Carolina. Thus nullification is sometimes considered a Southern state's right. In this case, however, it was the northerners of Wisconsin thatnullified a federal law (the Fugitive Slave Law) because of their anti-slavery convictions.
The U.S. attorney for Wisconsin appealed regarding Booth's second release, and the Supreme Court combined the two Booth cases into one. Although the defiant Wisconsin court refused to send its records to Washington, the U.S. Supreme Court obtained a copy by subterfuge.
Stung by the criticism over its Dred Scott decision, the Court delayedhearings on the Booth cases until January 1859. U.S. Attorney GeneralJeremiah S. Black appeared for the United States and, nominally, also for Ableman, who had long since retired from the office of federal marshall. No oneappeared for Booth and the state of Wisconsin, who did not recognize the Supreme Court's authority in this case.
Federal Courts Are Supreme over State Courts
Writing for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice Taney presented his decision inMarch 1859. Taney forcefully upheld the supremacy of the federal government and the federal courts. By using the device of habeas corpus, Taney declared, the Wisconsin Supreme Court had nullified the judgment and sentence ofa U.S. district court. In so doing, it had asserted that state courts were supreme over federal courts. If state courts could nullify the Fugitive SlaveLaw, they also could nullify any other federal law. This inevitably, Taney reasoned, would lead to chaos through conflicting decisions in various states.
Trying to prevent local interests, passions, and prejudices from dominating,Taney continued, the founders had made the federal government supreme withinthe sphere of action assigned to it. This supremacy could be maintained onlyif federal judicial power were supreme over state courts. State governments should not be jealous of this federal supremacy, for it was given by the Constitution, created by the people of all the states.
Taney admitted that a state court could use the process of habeas corpus to inquire into any and all imprisonments. But, as soon as a state judge or court is told "that the party is in custody under the authority of the United States, they can proceed no further." This was the heart of the matter. Afederal prisoner is "within the dominion and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States."
Even if a federal court ruled wrongly regarding federal laws, only a higher federal court could correct it. A state court had no authority to correct proceedings in a national court. However, for the record, Taney stated that the Fugitive Slave Law of 1859 was fully authorized by the U.S. Constitution.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court refused even to acknowledge Taney's decision. Booth finally was arrested in March 1860 and imprisoned in the customs house inMilwaukee. Because he would not pay his fine, he remained in jail until earlyin 1861. A state court commissioner issued a writ of habeas corpus, but the Marshall ignored it.
Although jurisdictional law sometimes may seem arcane, Justice Taney's Ableman decision was of profound significance in affirming national sovereignty and the supremacy of federal law. But no Supreme Court decision could compel the abolitionists to obey laws they considered unjust. Despite Taney's efforts, only a war could resolve the deep moral divisions of slavery.
Related Cases
- Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856).
Belva Ann Lockwood (1830-1917)
At the time of the Ableman cases, very few women were able to be involved in the practice of law. But in 1879, Belva Ann Lockwood drafted a law, which was later passed by Congress, that admitted women to practice before theSupreme Court. She then became the first woman to put the law into action asthe first woman lawyer to practice before the Court.
Lockwood was originally a teacher when she moved to Washington, D.C. to pursue a legal career. She had already had a full life, though she was only 30. Lockwood did not pursue a higher education for herself when young. In fact, itwas not until the death of her husband left her in need of supporting her young daughter that she decided she needed further schooling to make ends meet.She graduated school with honors as a teacher, and started work at the prestigious Lockport Union School. It was in her time as a teacher that she first became known as a feminist, as she encouraged the girls to polish their publicspeaking skills At this time Lockwood discovered and fostered her interest in the law and the political activism of women such as Susan B. Anthony. It was these interests that drew her to Washington, D.C. in the first place.
Lockwood gained entry to the newly founded National University Law School, where she quickly realized her dream of becoming a lawyer. The work was hard, and the treatment in the male-dominated field was harsh, but Lockwood made itthrough the course, ultimately being the only student (of the 14 women she started with) to receive her diploma in the end. This unequal treatment only served to strengthen Lockwood's feminist determination, and led her hand in many of her legal battles. She worked tirelessly during her life for women's suffrage, equal rights, and Native American rights.
Sources
http://www.stanford.edu/group/WLHP/papers/lockwood.htm
http://www.netsrq.com/~dbois/lockwood.html
User Comments Add a comment…