Constitutional Opinion No. 2026-0771
Case Information
- Content Scored
- Laidlaw v. Organ, 15 U.S. 178 (1817)
- Source
- Supreme Court of the United States, U.S. Reports Vol. 15 (2 Wheaton)
- Author
- Chief Justice John Marshall (opinion of the Court)
- Publication Date
- 1817-02-01
- Content Type
- Judicial Opinion / Legal-Normative Text
- Opinion Issued
- 2026-07-20
- AFCS Version
- 1.0
Holding
A commercial holding rather than a constitutional one, scored for the enterprise principle it fixes -- one the free-market order the ninth article protects rests upon. A tobacco buyer in New Orleans, knowing the Treaty of Ghent had ended the War of 1812 and would raise prices, closed his purchase without volunteering the news; the seller seized the goods back. Marshall held the buyer was under no duty to disclose: "whether the intelligence of extrinsic circumstances, which might influence the price... and which was exclusively within the knowledge of the vendee, ought to have been communicated by him to the vendor? The court is of opinion, that he was not bound to communicate it. It would be difficult to circumscribe the contrary doctrine within proper limits, where the means of intelligence are equally accessible to both parties." Yet not a license for deceit: "each party must take care not to say or do anything tending to impose upon the other," remanding so a jury could decide whether any "imposition" occurred. Aligned: freedom of contract and the arm's-length bargain that rewards the diligent who reach the market first -- a rule compelling disclosure could not be circumscribed and would punish the industry a commercial republic depends on (Article IX, 80); the citizen's liberty to make his own bargain, without a court enforcing a "romantic equality" the parties never had (Article II, 74); the rule of law drawing the line between lawful hard dealing and forbidden fraud, the honesty of the deal preserved as a jury question (Article XVIII, 76). Mild tension keeps it from climbing: the result can strike the eye as unfair, and Marshall allowed the silence might trouble the conscience "in foro conscientiae" while lawful "in the civil forum." But the safeguard is real -- superior diligence rewarded, active fraud barred. Scored as Legal/Normative text (85/15). Tier 1 nets to 76; the result is 78 -- Mostly America First. The free market functioning under law. Principle scored, not result.
It is the judgment of this Court that Opinion No. 2026-0771 is hereby entered into the record, in accordance with the America First Constitutional Standard. The score stands. The reasoning is published. The record is public.