This article needs additional citations for verification. (November 2013) |
Ableman v. Booth United States v. Booth | |
---|---|
Argued January 19, 1859 Decided March 7, 1859 | |
Full case name | Stephen V. Ableman, plaintiff in error v. Sherman M. Booth; and the United States, plaintiff in error v. Sherman M. Booth |
Citations | 62 U.S. 506 (more) |
Holding | |
A state court cannot grant a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner arrested under the authority of the United States and in federal custody. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
Majority | Taney, joined by unanimous |
Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 506 (1859), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts,[1] overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. The Court found that under the Constitution, federal courts have the final power to decide cases arising under the Constitution and federal statutes, and that the States do not have the power to overturn those decisions. Thus, Wisconsin did not have the authority to nullify federal judgments or statutes. For example, it is illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals acting under federal laws. The Ableman decision emphasized the dual form of American government and the independence of State and federal courts from each other.
The federal law in question was a strengthened Fugitive Slave Act, which northern free states saw as violating their territorial integrity, and conflicting with their traditions of liberty.