Jurisdiction and Jury Trials

In the founders’ words

• “The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred;” Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 78 (1788-05-28)
• “They are to be rendered totally independent, both of the people and the legislature, both with respect to their offices and salaries. No errors they may commit can be corrected by any power above them, if any such power there be, nor can they be removed from office for making ever so many erroneous adjudications.” Brutus (attributed to Robert Yates), Brutus, No. 11 (1788-01-31)
• “They will give the sense of every article of the constitution, that may from time to time come before them. And in their decisions they will not confine themselves to any fixed or established rules, but will determine, according to what appears to them, the reason and spirit of the constitution.” Brutus (attributed to Robert Yates), Brutus, No. 11 (1788-01-31)
• “The opinions of the supreme court, whatever they may be, will have the force of law; because there is no power provided in the constitution, that can correct their errors, or controul their adjudications. From this court there is no appeal.” Brutus (attributed to Robert Yates), Brutus, No. 11 (1788-01-31)
• “In the first place, there is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which DIRECTLY empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State.” Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 81 (1788-05-28)
• “It may be esteemed the basis of the Union, that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States.” Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 80 (1788-05-28)
• “Does the Constitution make provision for such a trial? I think not; for in a criminal process, a person shall not have a right to insist on a trial in the vicinity where the fact was committed, where a jury of the peers would, from their local situation, have an opportunity to form a judgment of the character of the person charged with the crime, and also to judge of the credibility of the witnesses.” Abraham Holmes, Debate in the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, January 30, 1788 (Elliot 2:109-14) (1788-01-30)

Public-domain primary sources, quoted word for word and checked against the linked text.

Leading Supreme Court cases

• Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793) · superseded by the Eleventh Amendment
• Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
• Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816)
• Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849)
• Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506 (1869)
• Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911)
• Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118 (1912)
• Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939)
• Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)
• Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)
• Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969)
• Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992)
• Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)
• Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)
• Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189 (2012)
• Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684 (2019)
• TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. ___ (2021)
• Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U.S. 477 (2023)
• United States v. Texas, 599 U.S. 670 (2023)

Cite this page

Values for America Constitution Explorer, https://www.valuesforamerica.com/constitution (text: National Archives transcription, public domain), Article III, Section 2, https://www.valuesforamerica.com/constitution/article-3/section-2

Data: this provision as JSON.