Constitutional Opinion No. 2026-0776
Case Information
- Content Scored
- Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821)
- Source
- Supreme Court of the United States, U.S. Reports Vol. 19 (6 Wheaton)
- Author
- Chief Justice John Marshall (opinion of the Court)
- Publication Date
- 1821-02-01
- Content Type
- Judicial Opinion / Legal-Normative Text
- Opinion Issued
- 2026-07-20
- AFCS Version
- 1.0
Holding
The third pillar of federal judicial supremacy, and the one in which supremacy and state authority are reconciled within a single holding. The Cohens brothers, convicted in Virginia of selling DC lottery tickets against state law, claimed a federal act authorized it and sought review; Virginia answered that its criminal judgments are final and the Eleventh Amendment barred the case. Marshall held the Court had jurisdiction -- extending Martin v. Hunter to criminal cases -- and that a writ of error to a state's own prosecution is not a "suit against a state." He grounded the duty famously: "we have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution." And plainly: "The constitution and laws of a state, so far as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States, are absolutely void," the states being "members of one great empire -- for some purposes sovereign, for some purposes subordinate." But then, distinctively, he exercised the jurisdiction IN FAVOR of the state: on the merits, the DC lottery act was local to the District and did not license sales in Virginia against its law; Congress had not "designed... to overrule the penal laws of the several states." The conviction was affirmed; Virginia's power to forbid lotteries vindicated. Strong alignment: the permanence of the constitutional order and the disciplined boundary of judicial power -- a court bound to decide what is within its jurisdiction and forbidden to reach beyond, both failings equally "treason" (Article XVII, 84); the rule of law and uniformity of federal rights, a federal forum even in a criminal case (Article XVIII, 80); the federalism tension present but SOFTENED at the moment it arises, the Court asserting supremacy then using it to uphold the state's law (Article XII, 66 -- above Martin's 62). Scored as Legal/Normative text (85/15). Tier 1 nets to 77; the result is 79 -- Mostly America First, one point above Martin and Peters: supremacy and state authority reconciled in one holding. Principle scored, not result.
It is the judgment of this Court that Opinion No. 2026-0776 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.