Background
Congress passed a bill to establish a National Lottery (United States), National Lottery to raise money for the District of Columbia that was conducted by the municipal government. Meanwhile, Virginia had established its own state lotteries and passed a law to prohibit the sale of out-of-state lottery tickets. Philip and Mendes Cohen were brothers and managed the Norfolk, Virginia branch of Cohens Lottery and Exchange Office ofJudicial history
The state courts found that the Virginia law prohibiting sale of out-of-state lotteries could be enforced, notwithstanding the act of Congress authorizing the D.C. lottery. The Cohens appealed to the United States Supreme Court by arguing that their conduct was protected by the Act of Congress authorizing the D.C. lottery. The Supreme Court concluded with two opinions on this case that were published together. The first opinion, containing the major rulings of constitutional and historical significance, concerned Virginia's motion to dismiss for purported lack of US Supreme Court jurisdiction. The ruling was issued on March 2, 1821, and asserted the Supreme Court's constitutional right to jurisdiction in this case. Having resolved the significant jurisdictional issues, the Court issued an opinion the next day on the merits of the case: it construed the Congressional statute as authorizing a lottery only in the City of Washington, District of Columbia. (At the time, the District of Columbia consisted of two cities, the other being Alexandria. In the 1840s, it was retroceded to the State of Virginia so that its major slave market could be operated outside the federal capital.) It upheld the convictions of the Cohens in Virginia. The main issue in ''Cohens v. Virginia'' was the preliminary issue of whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal in a criminal case decided by the courts of Virginia. Virginia argued that the U.S. Constitution does not give the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over criminal judgments by the state courts. Virginia also argued that the U.S. Constitution does not give the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over cases in which a state is a party. In effect, Virginia argued that its decision was final and could not be reviewed by the federal courts even though the decision involved the interpretation and application of an act of Congress. Virginia asserted that it had an unreviewable right to interpret and apply federal law as it saw fit. The Supreme Court relied on Article III, Section 2, of the U.S Constitution, which grants the Supreme Court jurisdiction in "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." The Court found that the U.S. Constitution provides no exceptions to this grant of jurisdiction for cases arising in the state courts or for cases in which a state is a party. Therefore, under its language, all cases arising under federal law are within the its grant of appellate jurisdiction. That conclusion was reinforced by the"There is certainly nothing in the circumstances under which our Constitution was formed, nothing in the history of the times, which would justify the opinion that the confidence reposed in the States was so implicit as to leave in them and their tribunals the power of resisting or defeating, in the form of law, the legitimate measures of the Union." The Court said that the Constitution's framers had decided to "confer on the judicial department the power of construing the Constitution and laws of the Union in every case, in the last resort, and of preserving them from all violation from every quarter, so far as judicial decisions can preserve them."The Court also said that unless state court decisions involving federal law could be reviewed by federal courts, there would be as many interpretations of federal law as there are states. Quoting "Federalist No. 80," the Court found that the Constitution was not intended to create "a hydra in government from which nothing but contradiction and confusion can proceed." Rather, relying on "Federalist No. 82," the Court found that the framers intended for the Supreme Court to have appellate jurisdiction over state court cases involving federal law. Accordingly, the Supreme Court found no restriction or limitation on the plain language of the Constitution granting it appellate jurisdiction over all cases arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. The Court, therefore, had jurisdiction over the appeal from the Virginia courts. Having found that it had jurisdiction, the Supreme Court upheld the Cohens' convictions. The Court found that Congress did not intend to authorize the sale of National Lottery tickets outside the District of Columbia. Therefore, there was no conflict between the act of Congress authorizing a lottery there and Virginia's statute prohibiting sale of out-of-lotteries within its boundaries.
See also
* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 19References
External links
* *{{caselaw source , case=''Cohens v. Virginia'', {{ussc, 19, 264, 1821, Wheat., 6, el=no , cornell =https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/19/264 , courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/85330/cohens-v-virginia/ , findlaw=http://laws.findlaw.com/us/19/264.html , justia=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/264/ , loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep019/usrep019264/usrep019264.pdf , openjurist =https://openjurist.org/19/us/264 , oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/19us264 1821 in United States case law United States Eleventh Amendment case law Supremacy Clause case law Criminal cases in the Marshall Court Legal history of Virginia United States Supreme Court cases of the Marshall Court United States Supreme Court cases