Misplaced Pages

Luther v. Borden: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:15, 14 December 2017 editLegalskeptic (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,298 edits Template:Ussc; Template:Caselaw source; added wikilinks to parallel cites in infobox← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:05, 4 July 2024 edit undo2603:7080:84f0:8540:b80f:3b10:b18e:1070 (talk) Added dateTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit 
(23 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{SCOTUSCase
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
|Litigants=Luther v. Borden |Litigants=Luther v. Borden
|ArgueDate= |ArgueYear= 1849
⚫ |DecideDate = January 3
|ArgueYear=1849
⚫ |DecideDate=
|DecideYear=1849 |DecideYear=1849
|FullName=Martin Luther v. Luther M. Borden |FullName=Martin Luther v. Luther M. Borden
|USVol=48 |USVol=48
|USPage=1 |USPage=1
|ParallelCitations=7 ] 1; 12 ] 581 |ParallelCitations=7 ] 1; 12 ] 581; 1849 ] 337
|Prior= |Prior=
|Subsequent= |Subsequent=
|Holding=Whether a state government is a legitimate republican form as guaranteed by the Constitution is a ] to be resolved by the President and Congress. |Holding=Whether a state government is a legitimate republican form as guaranteed by the Constitution is a ] to be resolved by the President and Congress.
|SCOTUS=1846-1851
|Majority=Taney |Majority=Taney
|JoinMajority=McLean, Wayne, Nelson, Grier |JoinMajority=McLean, Wayne, Nelson, Grier
Line 25: Line 24:
|Dissent2= |Dissent2=
|JoinDissent2= |JoinDissent2=
|NotParticipating=Catron, McKinley and Daniel |NotParticipating=Catron, McKinley, and Daniel
|LawsApplied=] |LawsApplied=]
}} }}
'''''Luther v. Borden''''', {{ussc|48|1|1849|How.|7|el=no}}{{ref|citation}}, was a case in which the ] established the ] doctrine in controversies arising under the ] of ] (Art. IV, § 4). '''''Luther v. Borden''''', 48 U.S. (7 How.) 1 (1849), was a case in which the ] established the ] doctrine in controversies arising under the ] of ] (Art. IV, § 4).{{ref|citation}}


Martin Luther was part of the ], an attempt to overthrow the charter government of ] that had stymied the efforts of those who wished to broaden the voting rights of state residents. The rebellion began as a political effort but turned violent. Martin Luther was arrested by Luther M. Borden, a state official, who searched his home and allegedly damaged his property. Luther contended that the charter government was not "republican" in nature because it restricted the electorate to only the most propertied classes; because Article Four states that "the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government," Luther argued that the Supreme Court should find that Borden acted without proper authority. In doing so, the Court would necessarily find that the "Dorrite" alternative republican government was the lawful government of Rhode Island, superseding the charter government. Martin Luther was part of the ], an attempt to overthrow the charter government of ] that had stymied the efforts of those who wished to broaden the voting rights of state residents. The rebellion began as a political effort but turned violent. Martin Luther was arrested by Luther M. Borden, a state official, who searched his home and allegedly damaged his property. Luther contended that the charter government was not "republican" in nature because it restricted the electorate to only the most propertied classes; because Article Four states that "the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government," Luther argued that the Supreme Court should find that Borden acted without proper authority. In doing so, the Court would necessarily find that the "Dorrite" alternative republican government was the lawful government of Rhode Island, superseding the charter government.


==The Court's Decision== ==Court's decision==


The Supreme Court found that it was up to the ] and ] to enforce this clause and that, as an inherently political question, it was outside the purview of the Court. The Supreme Court found that it was up to the ] and ] to enforce this clause and that, as an inherently political question, it was outside the purview of the Court. The case was cited as justification for Congress' actions towards southern states in the post-Civil War Reconstruction Era.<ref>Hubbs, Todd. 2006. "". ''Federalism in America: An Encyclopedia''.</ref>


The ruling established that the "republican form of government" clause of Article Four was ], a ruling that still holds today. However, two decades after ''Luther v. Borden'' was decided, the ], which included the ], was added to the Constitution. '']'', in which the Court found that the Court could examine ]'s ] of legislative districts, was based on the ], and many subsequent cases that covered much of the same ground as ''Luther v. Borden'' followed suit. The ruling established that the "republican form of government" clause of Article Four was ], a ruling that still holds today. However, two decades after ''Luther v. Borden'' was decided, the ], which included the ], was added to the Constitution. '']'', in which the Court found that the Court could examine ]'s ] of legislative districts, was based on the Equal Protection Clause, and many subsequent cases that covered much of the same ground as ''Luther v. Borden'' followed suit.


==See also== ==See also==
* ] * ]
*] *]
*] *]

==References==
<references />

==Further reading== ==Further reading==
*Dennison, George M. "The Dorr War and Political Questions," ''Supreme Court Historical Society Yearbook'' (1979), pp 45-62 *Dennison, George M. "The Dorr War and Political Questions," ''Supreme Court Historical Society Yearbook'' (1979), pp 45–62
* Schuchman, John S. "The Political Background of the Political-Question Doctrine: The Judges and the Dorr War," ''American Journal of Legal History'' (1972) 6#2 pp 111-125. * Schuchman, John S. "The Political Background of the Political-Question Doctrine: The Judges and the Dorr War," ''American Journal of Legal History'' (1972) 6#2 pp 111–125.


==External links== ==External links==
Line 51: Line 54:
*{{note|citation}} {{caselaw source *{{note|citation}} {{caselaw source
|case=''Luther v. Borden'', {{ussc|48|1|1849|How.|7|el=no}} |case=''Luther v. Borden'', {{ussc|48|1|1849|How.|7|el=no}}
| courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/86466/luther-v-borden/
| cornell =
⚫ | findlaw=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/48/1.html
| courtlistener =
⚫ | findlaw=http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/48/1.html
| justia=http://supreme.justia.com/us/48/1/case.html | justia=http://supreme.justia.com/us/48/1/case.html
| oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/48us1 | openjurist =https://openjurist.org/48/us/1
| loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep048/usrep048001/usrep048001.pdf
| other_source1 = OpenJurist
| other_url1 =https://openjurist.org/48/us/1
| other_source2 =
| other_url2 =
}} }}
*{{wikisource-inline|Luther v. Borden}} *{{wikisource-inline|Luther v. Borden|''Luther v. Borden''}}

{{Taney Court}}


] ]
] ]
] ]
⚫ ]
] ]
] ]
] ]
] ]
⚫ ]

Latest revision as of 20:05, 4 July 2024

1849 United States Supreme Court case
Luther v. Borden
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided January 3, 1849
Full case nameMartin Luther v. Luther M. Borden
Citations48 U.S. 1 (more)7 How. 1; 12 L. Ed. 581; 1849 U.S. LEXIS 337
Holding
Whether a state government is a legitimate republican form as guaranteed by the Constitution is a political question to be resolved by the President and Congress.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Roger B. Taney
Associate Justices
John McLean · James M. Wayne
John Catron · John McKinley
Peter V. Daniel · Samuel Nelson
Levi Woodbury · Robert C. Grier
Case opinions
MajorityTaney, joined by McLean, Wayne, Nelson, Grier
DissentWoodbury
Catron, McKinley, and Daniel took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. IV, § 4

Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 1 (1849), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the political question doctrine in controversies arising under the Guarantee Clause of Article Four of the United States Constitution (Art. IV, § 4).

Martin Luther was part of the Dorr Rebellion, an attempt to overthrow the charter government of Rhode Island that had stymied the efforts of those who wished to broaden the voting rights of state residents. The rebellion began as a political effort but turned violent. Martin Luther was arrested by Luther M. Borden, a state official, who searched his home and allegedly damaged his property. Luther contended that the charter government was not "republican" in nature because it restricted the electorate to only the most propertied classes; because Article Four states that "the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government," Luther argued that the Supreme Court should find that Borden acted without proper authority. In doing so, the Court would necessarily find that the "Dorrite" alternative republican government was the lawful government of Rhode Island, superseding the charter government.

Court's decision

The Supreme Court found that it was up to the President and Congress to enforce this clause and that, as an inherently political question, it was outside the purview of the Court. The case was cited as justification for Congress' actions towards southern states in the post-Civil War Reconstruction Era.

The ruling established that the "republican form of government" clause of Article Four was non-justiciable, a ruling that still holds today. However, two decades after Luther v. Borden was decided, the Fourteenth Amendment, which included the Equal Protection Clause, was added to the Constitution. Baker v. Carr, in which the Court found that the Court could examine Tennessee's apportionment of legislative districts, was based on the Equal Protection Clause, and many subsequent cases that covered much of the same ground as Luther v. Borden followed suit.

See also

References

  1. Hubbs, Todd. 2006. "Luther v. Borden". Federalism in America: An Encyclopedia.

Further reading

  • Dennison, George M. "The Dorr War and Political Questions," Supreme Court Historical Society Yearbook (1979), pp 45–62
  • Schuchman, John S. "The Political Background of the Political-Question Doctrine: The Judges and the Dorr War," American Journal of Legal History (1972) 6#2 pp 111–125. in JSTOR

External links

Taney Court (1836–1864)
Justices
Decisions
By volume
Pet.
How.
Black
Wall.
By topic
Landmark
Statutes
Categories: