Cohens v. Virginia
The Supreme Court held that it could review a state court's criminal judgment against a man prosecuted by Virginia for selling lottery tickets, rejecting the argument that Virginia's status as a party to the case put it beyond federal court review.
On the merits, the Court then ruled against the defendants anyway, finding that Congress's law authorizing a Washington, D.C. lottery never actually gave anyone the power to sell tickets in states like Virginia that banned such sales.
“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.”
The Court explains why it must decide the case even though the jurisdictional question is difficult and politically sensitive.
How it got here: Virginia's Borough Court of Norfolk convicted the defendants and Virginia's highest court with jurisdiction over the case let the judgment stand, so the case came to the Supreme Court by writ of error.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Virginia prosecuted brothers who sold lottery tickets in Norfolk, tickets authorized by a Congressional act allowing the City of Washington to run lotteries to raise money for local improvements. Virginia law banned selling lottery tickets within the state. The defendants argued their federal authorization to sell the tickets overrode Virginia's ban and protected them from prosecution.
The question before the Court
When Virginia prosecuted a man for selling lottery tickets he said Congress had authorized, could the Supreme Court review that state court judgment even though Virginia itself was a party?
The Court's answer
Yes — the Supreme Court ruled it did have jurisdiction to review Virginia's judgment, even though Virginia was a party and the defendant was Virginia's own citizen. The Court explained that any case raising a genuine federal question falls within its power to review, regardless of who the parties are, and that reviewing a criminal defendant's federal defense through a writ of error is not the kind of "suit against a state" the Eleventh Amendment forbids, because the defendant seeks no relief from the state itself.
Having secured jurisdiction, the Court then ruled against the defendants on the merits: Congress's law letting Washington, D.C. run a lottery never said anything about selling tickets outside the city, so it gave no protection against Virginia's ban on lottery sales, and the conviction was affirmed.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
The ruling secured the Supreme Court's power to review state court decisions touching on federal law even when a state is a party, preventing states from shielding their courts from federal oversight simply by being named in the case. This kept federal law and the Constitution uniform across the country rather than subject to differing state-by-state interpretations.
What changes now
This is a final merits decision, not an emergency or temporary order. The Norfolk court's judgment against the lottery-ticket sellers was affirmed, meaning their conviction and fine stood. The jurisdictional ruling itself became the lasting significance of the case, establishing that the Supreme Court can review state court judgments raising federal questions even when a state is a party, a rule that continued to govern later disputes between state and federal courts.
What this does not decide
The Court expressly declined to decide several hypothetical scenarios raised by counsel, such as whether a citizen could sue a state directly to recover an unconstitutional export duty already paid, or whether an individual could sue a state over confiscated treaty-protected property. It limited its ruling to cases where a federal defense is raised against a state's own prosecution.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court read Article III's grant of federal judicial power as containing two separate categories: cases defined by the character of the dispute (arising under the Constitution or federal law) and cases defined by the character of the parties (such as disputes involving a state). It held these categories are independent, so a case can fall under federal jurisdiction because it raises a federal question even though a state happens to be a party.
- Applying that reading, the Court concluded that a case in which a state prosecutes its own citizen but the citizen raises a federal defense still counts as a case 'arising under' federal law, giving the Supreme Court jurisdiction to review it regardless of the state's involvement.
- The Court then addressed the Eleventh Amendment, which bars certain suits against a state by out-of-state citizens. It reasoned that a writ of error brought by a defendant seeking only to have a conviction reviewed is not a 'suit commenced or prosecuted' against the state within the meaning of that Amendment, because the defendant demands nothing from the state and merely asks that his existing conviction be checked for a federal-law error.
- On the separate question of whether the Supreme Court could review state courts at all, the Court reasoned that the nation is one people for many purposes, that state and federal courts are not wholly separate systems, and that without a single body to give federal law one final meaning, the Constitution and federal statutes could mean something different in every state.
- The Court revisited language from its earlier decision in Marbury v. Madison suggesting original and appellate jurisdiction are mutually exclusive, and clarified that broad statements in an opinion should be read in light of the specific case that produced them, not stretched to defeat the structure of the Constitution's jurisdictional grants.
- Having settled that it had jurisdiction, the Court turned to the merits and applied ordinary rules of statutory interpretation, concluding that Congress's local lottery statute for Washington contained no language extending its authorization beyond the city's boundaries and therefore did not override Virginia's ban on ticket sales within the state.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Limits Marbury v. Madison
Clarifies that Marbury's broad statements about original versus appellate jurisdiction apply only to the specific facts of that case, not more generally.
Reaffirms Martin v. Hunter's Lessee
Relies on this earlier decision as having already fully settled the Supreme Court's power to review state court judgments.