Judiciary Act of 1789
From Judgepedia
The Judiciary Act of 1789, formally referred to as "Senate Bill Number One of the First Session of the First Congress," was ratified on September 24, 1789. The Act itself "provided a charter for the federal judicial system by specifying the jurisdiction and powers of the district and circuit courts, and the qualifications and authority of federal judges, district attorneys court clerks, U.S. Marshals, and Deputy Marshals.[1]" It was crafted by a conglomeration of statesmen called the Special Judiciary Committee, and one representative from each of the 10 states took part in its creation. (New York had yet to hold its Senatorial elections, and Rhode Island and North Carolina had not ratified the Constitution.) Its purpose was to expand upon Article III of the Constitution, which alloted (though not demanded) for the establishment of a United States judicial branch. However, it proved to be a controversial piece of legislation, prompting a lively debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike.
Contents |
Opponents
| I opposed this bill from the beginning...The constitution (sic) is meant to swallow all the state constitutions, by degrees; and this to swallow, by degrees, all the State judiciaries." --Sen. Wm. Maclay (PA) |
|---|
Anti-Federalists believed the Act was an unwelcome endorsement of a strong central-government, and would--both immediately and over time--errode states' rights. They were led by Richard Henry Lee (VA), who urged the Senate to limit "inferior" federal courts' jurisdiction to issues regarding the Admiralty, Samuel Livermore (NH) who did the same in the House, and William Grayson (VA). An alternate Anti-Federalist proposal was discussed that would have done away with lower federal courts while expanding the Supreme Court's jurisdiction.[2]
Supporters
James Madison, co-author of The Federalist Papers, and a leading Federalist, strongly supported (while noting various shortcomings) the Act because he believed a "reasonable reading of Article III, Section I" of the Constitution required Congress to establish federal courts--not merely suggested it, as many Anti-Federalist claimed it did. As a group, Federalists additionally argued that federal courts would be less susceptible to outside influence than any state court. As a result, they believed some cases belonged solely in the realm of federal courts--i.e. cases involving disputes between states, non-citizens, and crimes against the United States. [3]
The Compromise
Like the Constitution, the Judiciary Act of 1789 reflected a compromise between proponents for a strong, central government, and those who advocated states' rights. The final product, then, reflected this political tango. "In obtaining a federal judiciary of trial courts, the Federalists had to accept drastic limitation on those courts' jurisdiction to cases arising under the Constitution of the Acts of Congress. But the Act was a great legislative achievement for the Congress or a new nation."[4]
Lasting Impact
Not only did the enactment showcase the Founding Fathers' ability to project their political wisdom through history, but it also signified Congress's recognition of its ability to exercise its constitutional prerogative to establish a federal court system.
External Links
- National Archives: Judiciary Act of 1789
- Transcript: Judiciary Act of 1789
- Oliver Ellsworth: Architecht of the Constitution
