Foster v. Neilson
James Foster, Pleasants Elam
That a grant of land in Spanish West Florida in 1804 was valid under the terms of an 1818 treaty, even though the U.S. government had previously claimed its rights to the land.
Chief Lawyers for Petitioners
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Justices for the Court
Gabriel Duvall, William Johnson, John Marshall (writing for the Court), Joseph Story, Smith Thomson, Bushrod Washington
None (John McLean was not yet appointed)
Date of Decision
That the interpretation of treaties respecting national boundaries is a political matter committed to the Congress and the president, and not the courts. Accordingly, the courts are bound by the determination of Congress and the president that the land at issue was part of the United States in 1804, and the grant to the petitioners was invalid.
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
- United States v. Percheman, 32 U.S. 51 (1833).
- Corwin, Edward S. The President: Office and Powers 1787-1957. New York: New York University Press, 1957.
- Schubert, Glendon A. The Presidency in the Courts. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1957.
- Tebeau, Charlton W. A History of Florida. Coral Gables, Fla.: University of Miami Press, 1971.
- General William Hull Court-Martial: 1814 - An Army Of State Militiamen And Inexperienced Officers, Hull Ordered To Invade Canada, Hull Viewed As A Coward
- Fletcher v. Peck - Significance, Land Grabs And Corrupt Legislators, Innocent Third Parties, Contracts And The Constitution, Ex Post Facto Law
- Foster v. Neilson - Significance
- Other Free Encyclopedias