Tarble's Case
| Tarble's Case | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 4, 1871 Decided March 4, 1872 | |
| Full case name | Tarble's Case |
| Citations | 80 U.S. 397 (more) |
| Case history | |
| Prior | On writ of error to the Wisconsin Supreme Court |
| Holding | |
| A State judge has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus, or to continue proceedings under the writ when issued, for the discharge of a person held under the authority, or claim and color of the authority, of the United States by an officer of that government. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Field, joined by Nelson, Clifford, Swayne, Miller, Davis, Strong, Bradley |
| Dissent | Chase |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2 | |
Tarble's Case, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 397 (1872), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a State judge has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus, or to continue proceedings under the writ when issued, for the discharge of a person held by the authority, or claim and color of the authority, of the United States by an officer of that government.
Background
[edit]Edward Tarble was being held for desertion from the United States Army by Lieutenant Stone, an Army officer in Wisconsin. Tarble's father filed a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that Tarble was a minor at the time of his enlistment, and that he enlisted without the consent of his father.[1] A state judge of Dane County, Wisconsin issued the writ over the objection of the Army officer and ordered Tarble released on August 12, 1869.[2] Stone appealed the decision to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.[2] The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court in April 1870, and the United States petitioned for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.[2]
Opinion of the Court
[edit]
Justice Stephen Field delivered the opinion of the Court. Field stated that both Ableman v. Booth[3] and United States v. Booth[4] had answered the question of jurisdiction. The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, "anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."[5] A state court does not have the jurisdiction "to interfere with the authority of the United States, whether that authority be exercised by a Federal officer or be exercised by a Federal tribunal."[6] A state court may have jurisdiction under state law to issue the writ unless it appears on its face to be directed at an officer of the federal government.[7] The state judge was without jurisdiction to issue the writ and the judgment was reversed.[8]
Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase dissented from the majority opinion.[9] Chase believed that a state court had the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus, and that to deny that authority denied the rights of citizens to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment.[10]
References
[edit]- ^ Tarble's Case, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 397 (1872); Richard H. Fallon, Jr., Article: The Ideologies of Federal Courts Law, 74 Va. L. Rev. 1141, 1203 (1988).
- ^ a b c Tarble's Case, 80 U.S. at 397.
- ^ Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 506 (1859).
- ^ United States v. Booth, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 476 (1856).
- ^ Tarble's Case, 80 U.S. at 407.
- ^ Tarble's Case, 80 U.S. at 404; see generally Edward A Hartnet, Article: The Constitutional Puzzle of Habeas Corpus, 46 B.C. L. Rev. 251, 252 (2005).
- ^ Tarble's Case, 80 U.S. at 409.
- ^ Tarble's Case, 80 U.S. at 412; Fallon, at 1205-06.
- ^ Tarble's Case, 80 U.S. at 412 (Chase, CJ, dissenting).
- ^ Tarble's Case, 80 U.S. at 412-13 (Chase, CJ, dissenting).
External links
[edit]- Text of Tarble's Case, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 397 (1872) is available from: Justia Library of Congress OpenJurist