Other Free Encyclopedias » Law Library - American Law and Legal Information » Notable Trials and Court Cases - 1637 to 1832 » Cohens v. Virginia - Significance, Lotteries In America

Cohens v. Virginia - Significance

marshall union lottery people

Cohens v. Virginia crowned a series of decisions asserting the Supreme Court's authority to, in the words of Marshall, "decide all cases of every description under the laws of the United States." In this 1821 decision, Marshall legally demolished the claims of states' rights which would politically plunge the nation into Civil War in 1861: "The Constitution and laws of a state, insofar as they are repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States are absolutely void."

It was a cynical appeal, brought by two highly paid lawyers, on behalf of two speculators hoping to reap a multi-state harvest from a District of Columbia lottery. But it provided Chief Justice Marshall with grounds to assert the supremacy of the Union over the states.

In words that anticipated those of Abraham Lincoln in defending the Union 40 years later, Marshall unequivocally asserted the "We, the People" with which the Constitution began meant the Union, Congress and the Supreme Court created by that Constitution reigned over the states:

The United States form . . . a single nation . . . In war, we are one people. In all commercial regulations, we are one and the same people. In many other respects, the American people are one; and the government which is alone capable of controlling and managing their interests in all these respects is the government of the Union.

"It is their government, and in that character they have no other," Marshall declared in perhaps his most important decision--and in some of his most ringing words: "America has chosen to be a . . . nation; and for all these purposes, her government is complete . . . it is competent . . . it is supreme."

Albert Beveridge, Marshall's biographer, wrote that Cohens v. Virginia was one of the most famous cases in American jurisprudence, but, "on the merits, it amounted to nothing." But, as Beveridge added, although the "practical result of the appeal was nothing, it afforded John Marshall the opportunity to tell the Nation its duty."

Philip and Mendes Cohen, owners of a lottery authorized by Congress to operate in the District of Columbia, hoped to gleen the spare cash of people in other states. But officials in Norfolk, Virginia, zealously guarding the coffers of that state's lottery, fined the Cohens $100 for siphoning off the cash of Virginia citizens.

Marshall agreed with the constitutional claims of the Cohens' lawyers. David B. Ogden of New York, argued that Virginia had no authority to impose such fines since a "sovereign state, independent of the Union," does not exist. If federal courts did not review the decisions of state tribunals, federal authority would be surrendered, leaving "the Union a mere league or confederacy," argued William Pinckney, another Cohens' attorney and the nation's highest paid lawyer.

"On the merits," however, Marshall concurred with Virginia's attorneys, agreeing that the state had the power to regulate lottery sales within its borders. The District of Columbia lottery allowed by Congress was "only co-extensive with the city," Marshall ruled.

States' rights advocates were enraged--and suspicious--claiming the appeal had been "arranged . . . feigned" just to give Marshall an opportunity to assert national over states' interests. Even if the appeal was, "never was such contrivance so justified," Beveridge concluded.

Cohens v. Virginia - Lotteries In America [next]

User Comments

Your email address will be altered so spam harvesting bots can't read it easily.
Hide my email completely instead?

Cancel or

Vote down Vote up

over 1 year ago

Interesting. Cohen v. Virginia was a criminal case, and yet we are never told what the "nature" of the allegations were.

Under Article III Section 2 of the Constitution for the United States only three classes of cases is given to which Judicial Power extends (or three jurisdictions of law): Common Law Jurisdiction, Equity Law jurisdiction and Admiralty Maritime Law Jurisdiction.

The case is one alleging a crime, and if a crime then it can only fall under either Common Law Jurisdiction or Admiralty Maritime Jurisdiction. But these cannot be proper jurisdictions for a case where the State is a party-plaintiff, claiming her rights have been violated by the use of human rights, which, it must seem under the nature of things, trump states rights.

If this case is to represent that state rights are actually public rights, we remain assured that such rights cannot extend to criminal matters. It smacks of reality to say that this case represents public rights against private rights (or individual rights). The two are not lawfully equal, for a state is merely an artificial person, and if this be true, if this be the case, the it is only reasonable that such rights are also artificial.

Question: How does an artificial person (a fiction) meet the irreducible minimum requirement of standing to even bring such a suit?