Hubbry Logo
Chase CourtChase CourtMain
Open search
Chase Court
Community hub
Chase Court
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Chase Court
Chase Court
Chase Court
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Supreme Court of the United States
Chase Court
Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase
December 15, 1864 – May 7, 1873
(8 years, 143 days)
SeatOld Senate Chamber
Washington, D.C.
No. of positions10 (1864-1866)
8 (1866-1869)
9 (1869-1873)
Chase Court decisions

The Chase Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1864 to 1873, when Salmon P. Chase served as the sixth Chief Justice of the United States. Chase succeeded Roger Taney as Chief Justice after the latter's death. Appointed by President Abraham Lincoln, Chase served as Chief Justice until his death, at which point Morrison Waite was nominated and confirmed as his successor.

The Chase Court presided over the end of the Civil War and much of the Reconstruction Era. Chase was a complete change from the pro-slavery Taney; one of his first acts as Chief Justice was to admit John Rock as the first African-American attorney to argue cases before the Supreme Court.[1]

During Chase's chief-justiceship, Congress passed the Habeas Corpus Act 1867, giving the Court the ability to issue writs of habeas corpus for defendants tried by state courts. The Chase Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment for the first time, and its narrow reading of the Amendment would be adopted by subsequent courts.[2] As Chief Justice, Chase presided over the 1868 impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson. He also pursued the presidency twice while in office; he unsuccessfully sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 1868 and the Liberal Republican nomination in 1872.

Membership

[edit]
See also: List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Chase Court began when President Abraham Lincoln appointed Salmon Chase to replace Chief Justice Roger Taney, who died in 1864. The Chase Court commenced with Chase and nine Associate Justices: James Moore Wayne, John Catron, Samuel Nelson, Robert Cooper Grier, Nathan Clifford, Noah Haynes Swayne, Samuel Freeman Miller, David Davis, Stephen Johnson Field.

During Chase's tenure, Congress passed two laws setting the size of the Supreme Court, partly to prevent President Johnson from appointing Supreme Court justices. The Judicial Circuits Act of 1866 provided for the elimination of three seats (to take effect as sitting justices left the court), which would reduce the size of the court from ten justices to seven. Catron died in 1865, and he had not been replaced when the Judicial Circuits Act was passed, so his seat was abolished upon passage of the act. Wayne died in 1867, leading to the abolition of his seat. However, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1869, setting the size of the court at nine justices and creating a new seat. In 1870, President Ulysses S. Grant appointed William Strong to replace Grier, and Joseph P. Bradley to fill the newly created seat. Bradley was nominated after the Senate rejected Grant's nomination of Ebenezer R. Hoar; the Senate had also confirmed Edwin Stanton's nomination for Grier's seat, but Stanton died before taking office. Nelson retired in 1872, and Grant appointed Ward Hunt to succeed him.

Timeline

[edit]

Note: + denotes new seat; − denotes abolished seat

Bar key:
  Jackson appointee   Tyler appointee   Polk appointee   Buchanan appointee   Lincoln appointee   Grant appointee

Other branches

[edit]

Presidents during this court included Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, and Ulysses S. Grant. Congresses during this court included 38th through the 43rd United States Congresses.

Rulings of the Court

[edit]
See also: List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Chase Court and Criminal law in the Chase Court

Notable rulings of the Chase Court include:

  • Ex parte Milligan (1866): In an opinion written by Justice Davis, the court ruled that trials by military tribunal are constitutional only when the civil courts are not functioning, and there is no power left but the military. The case arose from an 1864 military tribunal in Indiana that tried several Union dissenters.
  • Mississippi v. Johnson (1867): In an opinion written by Chief Justice Chase, the court rejected a Mississippi lawsuit seeking to force President Andrew Johnson to enforce Reconstruction laws. The court held that Johnson's decision to enforce such laws was discretionary.
  • Crandall v. Nevada (1868): In an opinion written by Justice Miller, the court struck down a Nevada statute that imposed a $1 tax on people leaving the state. The court held that the right to travel is a fundamental right that cannot be impeded by states.
  • Georgia v. Stanton (1868): In an opinion written by Justice Nelson, the court refused to intervene in the enforcement of the Reconstruction Acts, holding that the case constituted a non-justiciable political question.
  • Texas v. White (1869): In an opinion written by Chief Justice Chase, the court held that the Constitution does not permit states to legally secede from the Union. The decision held that all acts of Confederate secession were legally null.
  • Legal Tender Cases (1871): In a series of opinions, the court upheld the government's ability to print paper money under the Legal Tender Act.
  • United States v. Klein (1871): In an opinion by Chief Justice Chase, the Court held that the principle of separation of powers prohibits Congress from prescribing a rule of decision for the federal courts to follow in particular pending cases.
  • The Slaughter-House Cases (1873): In a 5–4 decision written by Justice Miller, the court held that the Fourteenth Amendment does not affect a state's police power. The decision would eventually be largely overruled by numerous Supreme Court decisions that incorporated the Bill of Rights to apply to state governments.
[edit]
  • Chase Court, (May 30, 1865 - July 5, 1867)
    Chase Court
    (May 30, 1865 - July 5, 1867)
  • Chase Court, (July 5, 1867 - January 31, 1870)
    Chase Court
    (July 5, 1867 - January 31, 1870)

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Chase Court

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Chase Court was the of the during the tenure of , spanning from his commission on December 6, 1864, to his death on May 7, 1873. Chase, an antislavery advocate and former Treasury Secretary under President , was appointed to succeed Chief Justice amid the Civil War's final stages, bringing a Republican-aligned perspective to a Court navigating profound national divisions. The Court addressed critical post-war constitutional questions, including the validity of Reconstruction policies, the scope of newly ratified amendments like the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth, and federal authority over states, as seen in landmark rulings such as (1866), which limited military tribunals in civilian contexts during peacetime, and (1869), affirming the Union's indissolubility and rejecting secession's legality. Chase's leadership, marked by his presiding over President Andrew Johnson's 1868 impeachment trial and authoring opinions on and , reflected tensions between federal expansion and , though his political ambitions occasionally drew scrutiny for influencing judicial impartiality.

Background and Formation

Appointment of

Chief Justice Roger B. Taney died on October 12, 1864, amid the ongoing Civil War, prompting President Abraham Lincoln to seek a successor who could ensure judicial support for Union policies. On December 6, 1864, Lincoln nominated , who had resigned as Secretary of the Treasury earlier that year after serving from March 1861 to June 1864. In that role, Chase managed the Union's war financing, including authorizing the issuance of fiat currency known as greenbacks through the Legal Tender Act of 1862, which funded military expenditures without relying solely on taxation or bonds. Chase's represented a deliberate pivot from Taney's legacy, particularly his authorship of the 1857 decision affirming slavery's constitutionality, toward a aligned with antislavery principles and administrative expertise in wartime governance. Lincoln viewed the appointment as carrying profound political weight, reinforcing the administration's legal foundation during the conflict and Reconstruction's onset. The U.S. confirmed Chase unanimously on December 6, 1864, the same day as the nomination, reflecting broad acknowledgment of his fiscal competence despite his prior intraparty challenge to Lincoln's 1864 presidential bid. This swift, unopposed approval underscored the urgency for judicial stability and Chase's perceived reliability in upholding federal authority.

Historical Context of the Post-Civil War Era

The concluded with General Robert E. Lee's surrender to General at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865, marking the effective end of major Confederate resistance and initiating the challenges of reintegrating the defeated Southern states into the Union. This outcome prompted swift legislative action to address slavery's abolition, with Congress passing the Thirteenth Amendment on January 31, 1865, and achieving ratification on December 6, 1865, thereby prohibiting except as punishment for crime. Tensions arose immediately over readmission policies, as President Andrew Johnson's lenient approach—requiring Southern states to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment and repudiate debts—clashed with in Congress, who insisted on stricter safeguards including new constitutions and protections for freedmen's rights before restoring representation. Economic dislocations compounded these political frictions, as the Union's war financing through the Legal Tender Act of February 25, 1862—which authorized issuance of $150 million in non-interest-bearing "greenback" notes as —fueled inflation estimated at over 80% cumulatively by war's end, straining contracts, debts, and national credit while necessitating later congressional measures like income and excise taxes to stabilize prices. The Fourteenth Amendment, proposed by Congress on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868, further escalated debates by defining citizenship, guaranteeing due process and equal protection against state abridgment, and penalizing former Confederate states for disenfranchising Black voters, effectively conditioning their full reintegration on compliance. In the South, empirical patterns of violence hindered stable governance, with groups like the —formed in , in late —engaging in targeted intimidation and murders against freedmen, Republican officials, and Unionists to suppress Black political participation and restore , prompting federal responses such as the of 1870–1871. The Supreme Court's operational milieu shifted from the Taney era's doctrinal preference for and limited federal commerce power, as seen in decisions curtailing national authority, toward confronting expanded federal imperatives for enforcing emancipation, managing war-related detentions via petitions under the 1867 Act, and adjudicating fiscal legacies amid rising caseloads driven by Reconstruction disputes. These dynamics created causal pressures between inherited favoring local sovereignty and congressional assertions of centralized power to secure Union victories' fruits, framing the Chase Court's early deliberations without predefined doctrinal resolution.

Membership and Composition

Justices and Their Ideological Profiles


, appointed on December 15, 1864, entered the Court with a background as an antislavery leader, governor from 1856 to 1860, U.S. Senator from 1849 to 1855, and Treasury Secretary from 1861 to 1864, where he established the national banking system and issued greenbacks to finance the Civil War. His pre-appointment record emphasized opposition to slavery expansion, support for free labor principles, and fiscal innovation under exigency, but as , he demonstrated conservative leanings on property rights, dissenting in Hepburn v. Griswold (1870) against constitutionality beyond war necessities. This profile balanced abolitionist roots with restraint against unchecked federal monetary power, influencing Court dynamics toward causal prioritization of constitutional limits over wartime precedents. The associate justices, numbering eight alongside the Chief during much of Chase's tenure, drew from Northern and border-state origins, with seven of nine hailing from free states pre-war, fostering leanings toward federal authority in Union preservation while varying on . The Judiciary Act of 1866 reduced the Court's authorized size from ten to seven justices as vacancies occurred, nullifying President Andrew Johnson's nomination of Henry Stanbery and limiting Democratic appointments to maintain a Republican majority amid Reconstruction disputes. This structural shift causally preserved ideological balance favoring antislavery and pro-Union perspectives, as two vacancies (James M. Wayne's death in 1867 and Robert C. Grier's retirement in 1870) reduced the bench without immediate replacements until President Grant's 1870 appointments elevated it to nine. Key associates included antislavery Republicans like Noah H. Swayne, appointed in 1862 after relocating from to due to opposition to , serving as U.S. Attorney and advocating Union causes, which aligned with expansive federal war powers. Samuel F. Miller, appointed 1862 from , practiced medicine and law in frontier free states, embodying Republican commitment to national unity over local secessionist claims. David Davis, appointed 1862 from , managed Lincoln's presidential campaign and favored pragmatic rooted in Whig precedents. In contrast, Stephen J. Field, appointed 1863 from , advanced and economic liberty as a justice, championing "free soil, free labor" against monopolistic restraints pre-appointment. Democratic holdovers like , appointed 1858 from , leaned toward and sympathy for Southern interests, providing counterweight to Republican majorities on . Later appointees under Grant included William Strong, a Republican congressman from 1863 to 1869 who supported Reconstruction measures pre-1870 appointment, reflecting initial pro-civil rights enforcement views shaped by wartime service. , appointed 1870 from , brought experience favoring contract sanctity and intervention. Ward Hunt, appointed 1873 from New York, emphasized from his state court tenure. This composition, with Republican dominance from free-state backgrounds, tilted the Court toward upholding federal Reconstruction authority while accommodating economic conservatism from figures like Field and Chase.

Timeline of Appointments and Departures

was nominated by President on , 1864, and confirmed by the the same day to succeed , who had died on October 12, 1864; was sworn in on December 15, 1864. The Court initially comprised ten members following expansions under prior administrations, but the Judiciary Act of July 23, 1866, mandated a reduction to seven seats by not filling the next three vacancies.
DateEventJustice InvolvedDetails
May 30, 1865Death (Associate)Catron's death created the first vacancy under the 1866 act; the seat remained vacant for nearly five years amid political tensions during President Andrew Johnson's administration, including failed nominations such as that of Henry Stanbery, who withdrew in 1866.
July 5, 1867Death (Associate)Wayne's death marked the second vacancy, further reducing active membership to eight total; no immediate replacement due to the reduction act and ongoing partisan conflicts.
January 31, 1870RetirementRobert C. Grier (Associate)Grier, pressed by colleagues due to declining , retired as the third vacancy, bringing the to seven members in line with the 1866 act; this seat lapsed without appointment during Chase's tenure.
February 7, 1870NominationWilliam Strong (Associate)President nominated Strong, a lawyer and former congressman, to fill Wayne's long-vacant seat.
February 18, 1870Confirmation and Swearing-inWilliam Strong (Associate)Senate confirmed Strong unanimously; he filled the fifth circuit seat, restoring membership amid Grant's efforts to bolster Republican influence post-Reconstruction disputes.
February 7, 1870Nomination (Associate)Grant simultaneously nominated Bradley, a lawyer known for corporate law expertise, for Catron's ninth circuit seat.
March 21, 1870Confirmation (Associate)Senate confirmed Bradley after debate; sworn in March 23, 1870, increasing the to nine members despite the prior reduction intent.
November 28, 1872Death (Associate)Nelson's death created a new vacancy in the second circuit seat, left unfilled until December 1873 under President Grant, after Chase's passing.
These changes reflect the Court's resilience, with only two new associate justices appointed despite extended vacancies totaling over eight justice-years, underscoring Republican control over nominations under Grant following Johnson's impeachment-era gridlock.

Concurrent Political Landscape

Executive Branch Interactions

President nominated to serve as on December 6, 1864, immediately following the death of on October 12, 1864, with the confirming the unanimously the same day. This appointment, one of Lincoln's final significant acts before his on April 15, 1865, reflected strategic efforts to align the with Republican priorities during the waning months of the Civil War, including the issuance of the and preservation of Union authority. Relations with President intensified conflicts over Reconstruction enforcement. In Mississippi v. Johnson (decided April 1867), the Chase Court unanimously dismissed Mississippi's request for an to prevent Johnson from executing the —legislation he vetoed on March 2, 1867, but which overrode—holding that federal courts lacked to restrain the President in discretionary executive functions involving political questions, thus reinforcing constitutional separations that limited judicial intrusion into executive duties. Chase further interacted with Johnson's administration by presiding over his Senate commencing March 5, 1868, where he ruled on evidentiary procedures, including breaking ties on witness subpoenas that extended the proceedings and contributed to Johnson's narrow acquittal on May 26, 1868, by a single vote on key articles. Under President , who assumed office on March 4, 1869, the Court saw appointments that solidified its Republican composition, including on February 7, 1869 (confirmed March 21, 1869), and William Strong on February 7, 1870 (confirmed February 18, 1870), both supporting broader federal powers in Reconstruction contexts while encountering judicial checks on executive military actions. The Court upheld limits on executive habeas suspensions and military tribunals in civilian contexts, as evidenced in rulings challenging post-war military governance where civil courts remained operational, thereby constraining potential executive expansions during Grant's enforcement of federal authority against Southern resistance. These dynamics illustrated the judiciary's function in balancing executive initiatives against constraints, without endorsing unchecked presidential discretion.

Legislative Branch Dynamics

The (1865–1867), dominated by who held supermajorities in both chambers—with Republicans comprising 149 of 191 House members and 42 of 54 senators—enacted sweeping Reconstruction legislation, including the Fourteenth Amendment ratified on July 9, 1868, to define citizenship, , and equal protection while countering presidential leniency toward former Confederates. This legislative assertiveness reflected a broader push for federal supremacy over states in civil rights enforcement, often in tension with judicial interpretations during the Chase Court era. In response to perceived judicial resistance under Chief Justice , passed the Judiciary Act of 1866 on July 23, which reduced the Supreme Court's authorized membership from ten to seven justices as vacancies occurred, effectively blocking President Andrew Johnson's ability to nominate successors and limiting his influence on the bench amid Reconstruction disputes. The measure nullified Johnson's pending nomination of Henry Stanbery to a tenth seat, illustrating congressional efforts to recalibrate judicial power without direct confrontation. The Habeas Corpus Act of February 5, 1867, further expanded federal judicial authority by authorizing writs of to challenge state detentions, particularly targeting Southern states' treatment of freedmen and Unionists, which significantly increased the Chase Court's caseload with appeals like (1869), where Congress later repealed appellate jurisdiction to avert an adverse ruling on military tribunals. This act, passed by the same Radical-led Congress, underscored legislative intent to bolster federal oversight while exposing frictions, as the Court navigated expanded review amid over 200 habeas petitions filed in federal courts by 1868. Instances of judicial deference to congressional priorities included (1869), where the Court affirmed the indissolubility of the Union and validated federal control over seceded states' assets, aligning with Radical aims to delegitimize Confederate actions without undermining Reconstruction statutes. Conversely, clashes arose in the Test Oath Cases, such as Cummings v. Missouri (1867), where a majority invalidated state constitutional oaths barring ex-Confederates from professions as ex post facto laws and bills of attainder, frustrating Radical efforts to exclude disloyal elements from public life and prompting legislative threats of further . Circuit-riding duties imposed heavy physical and administrative burdens on Chase Court justices, requiring them to hold lower federal court sessions across vast territories—often traveling by horseback or stagecoach for months annually—which addressed via the , creating nine dedicated circuit judgeships to relieve members and professionalize the , thereby reducing annual circuit obligations from over 100 days per . These structural adjustments highlighted ongoing legislative-judicial tensions over supremacy, with leveraging statutory tools to enforce Reconstruction without resorting to , though isolated calls for judicial removal circulated in Radical circles amid oath case backlash.

Jurisprudence and Key Doctrines

Approaches to Reconstruction and Civil Rights

The Chase Court's on Reconstruction emphasized the enforcement of the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition on and , recognizing it as a fundamental barrier to state-sanctioned bondage while limiting federal authority to address private discrimination absent clear badges of . This approach upheld the amendment's core empirical outcome—emancipation and basic freedom for approximately 4 million enslaved individuals by 1865—but resisted broader congressional extensions into regulating consensual private relations, such as employment contracts or social associations, on grounds that such expansions lacked direct causal ties to eradicating 's vestiges and risked overstepping federalism's boundaries. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, the Court affirmed citizenship for freedmen and protections against arbitrary state deprivations, yet construed the to encompass primarily national , such as access to federal ports and protection on the high seas, rather than an expansive catalog of enforceable against states. This narrow reading, evident in doctrinal precedents, critiqued overly broad interpretations as enabling unlimited federal intrusion into powers, potentially destabilizing local without proportionate evidence of necessity for civil advancement. Justices like Stephen Field dissented in related contexts, arguing for stronger safeguards against state overreach, but the majority prioritized causal restraint to preserve constitutional equilibrium between federal intervention and state autonomy. A key doctrinal thread involved protecting and rights as essential to for all, including freedmen, by invalidating retroactive legislative punishments that burdened professions or economic activities without judicial trial. For instance, the Court's invalidation of test oaths exemplified this by deeming them bills of attainder and ex post facto laws, thereby shielding individuals from deprivation of civil rights based on unproven past sympathies, a principle that empirically facilitated post-war economic reintegration while checking punitive Reconstruction statutes. This balanced federal oversight of overt rights violations with deference to states on internal matters, reflecting skepticism toward measures lacking individualized evidence of wrongdoing.

Economic Policy and Contract Rights

The Chase Court vigorously enforced the of Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, striking down state laws that retroactively impaired obligations of contracts, particularly in the context of municipal bonds and wartime debts that underpinned post-Civil War economic stabilization. In Gelpcke v. City of Dubuque (1864), the Court, in an opinion by Justice Noah Swayne, held that federal courts sitting in must apply a state's settled judicial construction of contracts as they existed at the time of issuance, thereby protecting out-of-state bondholders from subsequent state legislative repudiation of railroad financing agreements. This decision reflected the Court's recognition of the causal role stable contract enforcement played in attracting capital for amid a national debt exceeding $2.6 billion by 1865, where investor confidence hinged on predictable remedies against defaulting municipalities. Subsequent rulings extended this protection, prioritizing vested property rights over state fiscal expedients justified as Reconstruction necessities. In Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy (1872), Justice Samuel Miller's opinion invalidated an municipal ordinance that unilaterally reduced payments on pre-existing bonds, ruling that such impairments violated the even if enacted to alleviate local taxpayer burdens from overextended wartime borrowing. The decision underscored empirical links between contract sanctity and recovery, as repudiation risks had already eroded bond values by an estimated 20-30% in affected states, deterring reinvestment essential for industrial rebuilding. On , the Court critiqued wartime inflationary expedients through constitutional limits on Congress's monetary powers, emphasizing specie as the baseline for contractual debts. Chase's in Hepburn v. Griswold (1870) declared unconstitutional the Legal Tender Act of 1862's application to debts predating its enactment, reasoning that the term "dollar" in the Coinage Clause (Article I, Section 8) historically denoted or silver, and notes—depreciated by up to 50% against specie during peak inflation—effectively impaired contractual expectations without explicit constitutional warrant. Chase, drawing from his Treasury experience where greenback issuance fueled 181% cumulative inflation from 1861-1865, argued this preserved economic liberty by rejecting retroactive debasement that favored debtors over creditors holding $2.7 billion in Union securities promising specie redemption. This stance faced reversal amid political pressure, highlighting tensions between judicial fiscal restraint and executive demands for liquidity. In the (Knox v. Lee, 1871), a reconstituted 5-4 majority upheld the Act prospectively, but Chase dissented, reiterating that constitutional currency tethered to metallic standards prevented arbitrary value shifts that distorted markets and eroded savings, as evidenced by greenback holders' real losses exceeding 25% in by war's end. His position prefigured defenses of against redistributive monetary policies, though the overruling accommodated postwar servicing without further . Precursors to emerged in these rulings' insistence on legislative bounds protecting property from uncompensated , favoring verifiable contractual predictability over ad hoc state or federal interventions.

Federalism, Habeas Corpus, and Military Authority

In Ex parte Milligan (1866), the Chase Court addressed the boundaries of federal authority over during and after the Civil War, ruling that commissions lack to try individuals in areas where civil courts remain operational. Lambdin P. Milligan, an accused of aiding the Confederacy, had been arrested in 1864, tried by a commission in 1865, and sentenced to death for and related charges, despite 's civil courts functioning throughout the war as a loyal . The Court, in an opinion by Justice David Davis, held unanimously on the merits that such tribunals violated constitutional guarantees of jury trials under Article III and the Sixth Amendment, rejecting executive claims of wartime necessity as insufficient to suspend civilian judicial processes absent congressional authorization for in non-invaded territories. The decision invoked historical precedents from English and early American practice, emphasizing that the Suspension Clause (Article I, Section 9) permits to be withheld only by during rebellion or invasion, and even then, not to authorize trials where civil alternatives exist—a rooted in the Framers' to prevent arbitrary executive power expansions, as evidenced by debates in the Constitutional Convention and Federalist Papers. Davis's reasoning applied to wartime conditions, noting that Milligan's trial occurred after Appomattox (April 9, 1865) and in a secure rear area, where no empirical disruption to civil order justified supplanting courts, thus prioritizing constitutional text over post-hoc rationalizations of convenience. A 5-4 split arose on procedural grounds, with Chief Justice and three others concurring that the habeas petition reached the merits despite Lincoln's 1863 suspension proclamation, but affirming the outcome against jurisdiction. This ruling imposed constraints on , mandating to state and federal civilian courts and curbing Reconstruction-era occupations by invalidating commissions in non-combat zones, which compelled the Johnson administration to release or retry detainees through judicial channels rather than indefinite holds. By December 1866, President commuted Milligan's sentence in light of the decision, signaling a practical retreat from broad detentions and influencing congressional shifts toward statutory Reconstruction measures over pure martial rule. The Court's habeas interventions post-Appomattox, including Milligan, underscored a restoration of pre-war legal norms, balancing Union imperatives against risks of normalized executive overreach, as petitions challenging civilian trials declined amid affirmed judicial primacy.

Major Decisions

Civil War Legacy and Union Preservation Cases

In Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), decided on April 12, 1869, the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that the Union is "an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States," rendering Texas's 1861 ordinance of secession unconstitutional and void ab initio. The case originated as an original jurisdiction suit by the provisional governor of Texas against George W. White and others, seeking recovery of $800,000 in U.S. bonds transferred to Texas in 1850 as compensation for boundary cessions and wrongfully sold by Texas officials during the Confederacy to finance the war effort. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, writing for the majority, held that Texas had never legally departed the Union, as the Constitution's structure precludes unilateral state withdrawal without consent from other states or revolution altering the fundamental law; thus, transactions by purported Confederate authorities lacked validity, and the bonds reverted to Texas as Union property. This affirmed the continuity of Southern states' status post-rebellion, prioritizing constitutional perpetuity over de facto separation. The ruling's validation of Union indissolubility reflected the war's causal lessons, where precipitated conflict costing the federal government approximately $3.3 billion in direct expenditures—equivalent to over 60% of GDP—and resulting in national debt surging from $65 million pre-war to $2.7 billion by , alongside roughly 620,000 military deaths that demonstrated the prohibitive human and economic toll of disunion. Such empirical devastation causally reinforced the necessity of legal barriers to future secession, as fragmented governance would invite recurrent fiscal ruin and violence without centralized authority to enforce cohesion. Complementing this preservation theme, the companion cases Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. 277 (1867), and Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866), both decided January 14, 1867, struck down retroactive loyalty oaths as bills of attainder and ex post facto punishments in a 5-4 split. In Cummings, 's 1865 constitution barred ordained ministers like plaintiff John A. Cummings—a who had not actively supported the Confederacy—from practicing unless swearing they had never given aid or comfort to the rebellion; the Court, per Justice Stephen J. Field (with Chase concurring), invalidated this as legislative infliction of disability without trial, violating Article I, Section 9's prohibitions on attainders and retroactive laws. Similarly, in Garland, , a former Confederate senator pardoned by President , sought admission to the U.S. bar without the federal of 1862, which disqualified ex-rebels; Field's opinion held the oath punitive in effect and that pardons restore full civil rights, obliterating guilt as if never committed, thus exempting Garland and emphasizing executive clemency's supremacy over congressional disabilities. These oath decisions advanced post-war stability by curtailing punitive exclusions that could perpetuate division, enabling reintegration of Southern professionals and aligning with constitutional restraints on to avert cycles of retribution. Yet, they drew contemporary Radical Republican ire for diluting Reconstruction enforcement, as reinstating ex-Confederates into clergy, law, and teaching roles arguably facilitated the subversion of federal protections for freed slaves and the 1868 Democratic gains that eroded military governance in readmitted states. This tension highlights the rulings' role in prioritizing over prolonged punitive measures, though critics contend it empirically enabled Southern elite resurgence, correlating with the withdrawal of federal troops by 1877 and rollback of .

Fourteenth Amendment Interpretations

The Chase Court's interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment emphasized a narrow scope, distinguishing between national and state citizenship to preserve traditional federalism by limiting federal judicial intervention in intrastate matters. In its first major examination of the amendment, the Court construed the Privileges or Immunities Clause as protecting only those rights inherent to federal citizenship, such as access to seaports and protection on the high seas, rather than broader civil liberties traditionally regulated by states. This approach, articulated in Slaughter-House Cases (83 U.S. 36, 1873), rejected claims that the clause incorporated fundamental economic rights, like the freedom to pursue a lawful occupation without state-granted monopolies, thereby upholding Louisiana's 1869 law creating a slaughterhouse monopoly in New Orleans as not violative of the amendment. Justice Samuel Miller's majority opinion, joined by four justices, reasoned from the amendment's text and history that its primary aim was to secure citizenship and basic protections against former slaves, not to federalize common-law rights or override state police powers over local commerce. Dissenting justices, including Stephen Field and Joseph Bradley, contended that the encompassed unenumerated natural rights, such as the right to labor in one's chosen trade, which states could not arbitrarily abridge through monopolistic grants, viewing the majority's distinction as artificially confining the amendment's intent to elevate individual liberties above state encroachments. Field's dissent highlighted the clause's textual breadth, arguing it safeguarded "privileges and immunities" akin to those in the Bill of Rights and , potentially incorporating economic freedoms against state interference, a position Bradley echoed by warning that the ruling subordinated fundamental rights to legislative whim. This narrow construction causally forestalled expansive federal oversight of state economic regulations, preserving dual sovereignty but enabling states to impose restrictions later criticized for stifling and , though proponents defended it as averting a wholesale nationalization of civil rights that could erode local governance. In Bradwell v. (83 U.S. 130, 1873), decided concurrently, the Court unanimously rejected Myra Bradwell's claim that the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities or Equal Protection Clauses entitled her, as a U.S. citizen, to a license to practice law denied by on account of her sex. Miller's opinion affirmed states' authority to set professional qualifications under common-law traditions, interpreting the amendment as not altering states' regulatory domain over intrastate occupations or imposing egalitarian mandates beyond citizenship basics. Bradley's concurrence reinforced this by invoking distinctions in sex roles, asserting that the amendment did not empower federal courts to override state judgments on women's suitability for adversarial professions like lawyering, prioritizing societal norms over claims of absolute equality. These rulings collectively constrained the amendment's enforcement against state-level discriminations in economic and professional spheres, critiqued for weakening federal civil remedies by deferring to state , yet substantiated as aligning with the amendment's drafting focus on national protections amid Reconstruction's political exigencies, thereby avoiding judicial overreach into areas of proven state competence. The decisions' emphasis on textual differentiation between citizenship tiers empirically limited subsequent incorporation of until later eras, sustaining by channeling disputes to state forums while exposing vulnerabilities in uniform civil application. The issuance of Notes, known as greenbacks, under the Act of February 25, 1862, authorized approximately $150 million in unbacked paper currency to finance Civil War expenditures, making them legal tender for all public and private debts except duties on imports and interest on federal debt. This measure, supplemented by the Act of July 11, 1862, which added $150 million more, departed from the gold standard and enabled rapid deficit financing but triggered significant , with consumer prices rising by about 80% between 1861 and 1865 and annual rates exceeding 25% during peak war years. Critics, including sound money proponents, argued that such fiat currency eroded creditor property rights by allowing repayment of gold-based debts in depreciated paper, impairing the obligation of contracts in violation of constitutional principles. In Hepburn v. Griswold, decided February 7, 1870, the by a 4-3 vote held that the Legal Tender Acts could not constitutionally apply to debts contracted before their enactment, as Congress lacked authority under Article I, Section 8 to abrogate pre-existing private contracts through retroactive tender laws, and such application infringed the Fifth Amendment's protections against arbitrary deprivation of property. , authoring the majority opinion, emphasized that the Constitution's enumeration of congressional powers—limited to coining money and regulating its value—did not extend to forcing depreciated paper on unwilling creditors for ante-act obligations, a view consistent with his post-Treasury skepticism toward despite his earlier reluctant implementation of the Acts to avert fiscal collapse. Chase dissented from any broader validation, prioritizing contractual stability and metallic standards to prevent inflationary distortions that undermined economic predictability. The decision's narrow margin reflected internal divisions, but it was swiftly overturned in the , Knox v. Lee and Parker v. Davis, decided May 1, 1871, by a 5-4 majority after President Grant's appointments of Justices Bradley and shifted the Court's composition. The majority upheld the Acts' application to pre-existing debts, reasoning that war exigencies justified implied constitutional powers for national self-preservation, including monetary emission to sustain the Union, and that any contract impairment was incidental rather than direct. Chase dissented vigorously, reiterating that the ruling legitimized fiat normalization at the expense of vested rights and invited future erosions of sound money principles, a stance aligned with fiscal conservative arguments favoring taxation and borrowing over inflationary expedients. These rulings highlighted tensions between fiscal flexibility in crises—defended by proponents as essential for Union victory amid gold hoarding and specie shortages—and objections rooted in property rights, with of greenback depreciation (trading at 35-40 cents per by 1864) underscoring risks of currency debasement absent metallic constraints. The personnel-driven reversal illustrated how judicial appointments causally influenced outcomes, enabling Congress's wartime monetary innovations to endure despite initial constitutional rebuff.

Controversies and Criticisms

Internal Court Conflicts

The Chase Court experienced notable internal divisions among its justices, particularly over interpretations of Reconstruction-era constitutional amendments and federal authority, resulting in higher rates of dissenting opinions compared to the preceding . Statistical analyses of voting patterns identify a regime shift in dissenting opinions coinciding with the onset of Chase's tenure in 1864, attributable to the ideological tensions arising from postwar legal realignments and the integration of new justices appointed amid shifting political landscapes. This elevation in dissent—exceeding the Taney era's approximately 16% rate—reflected empirical pressures from Reconstruction policies rather than mere personal discord, as justices grappled with balancing against national unity. Chief Justice Chase sought to maintain institutional control through opinion assignments, a prerogative exercised by the chief when in the majority, but frequently encountered resistance from shifting coalitions that undermined his preferred doctrinal directions. In instances involving fiscal controversies, such as challenges to wartime currency measures, initial majorities aligned with Chase's views dissolved following the 1870 appointments of Justices William Strong and Joseph Bradley, prompting reversals that exposed deep bench divisions and led to heated arguments during deliberations. Similarly, in the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), Chase dissented alongside Justices Stephen Field, Joseph Bradley, and Noah Swayne in a 5-4 ruling, signaling his loss of a potential majority on the scope of Fourteenth Amendment privileges—a pattern indicative of broader ideological splits between Chase's expansive civil rights vision and the more restrained approaches of Justices Samuel Miller and David Davis. These conflicts underscored criticisms of the Court's inconsistency, as abrupt majority flips eroded perceptions of doctrinal stability, yet Chase's leadership also fostered collegial processes, evidenced by his authorship of unifying opinions in select matters and his insistence on procedural fairness during high-stakes proceedings like the 1868 impeachment trial of President . Historians attribute such dynamics to the Court's composition—often featuring holdovers from the Taney era alongside Lincoln and Grant appointees—rather than systemic dysfunction, with Chase's above-average personal dissent rate as further highlighting his principled but often isolated stance amid these empirical fractures. Overall, the era's elevated , while straining unanimity, compelled rigorous debate that shaped evolving doctrines without descending into unproductive acrimony.

Political Pressures and Accusations of Bias

![Salmon P. Chase](.assets/Mathew_Brady%252C_Portrait_of_Secretary_of_the_Treasury_Salmon_P.Chase%252C_officer_of_the_United_States_government18601860%E2%80%931865 The Chase Court's decision in Ex parte Milligan on April 12, 1866, provoked intense backlash from Radical Republicans in Congress, who viewed the 9-0 ruling against military tribunals for civilians in areas with functioning civil courts as an obstacle to Reconstruction policies aimed at punishing Confederate sympathizers and securing Republican control in the South. Leaders like Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner accused the Court of pro-Southern bias, arguing it undermined congressional authority to impose martial law and protect federal enforcement against domestic insurrection. These critics, representing a faction prioritizing partisan Reconstruction over strict constitutional limits, labeled the decision as judicial sabotage that emboldened Copperheads and former rebels, with some newspapers echoing claims of the justices' sympathy for the defeated Confederacy. In response to anticipated challenges to the , Congress enacted legislation on March 27, 1868, repealing the appellate jurisdiction provision of the 1867 Act, thereby preventing the from reviewing habeas petitions related to military reconstructions in former Confederate states. This jurisdiction-stripping measure, applied in (decided April 12, 1869), where the Court unanimously dismissed the case citing the new law, represented a direct congressional assertion over judicial power amid fears the Chase Court would invalidate Reconstruction. While hailed it as a necessary check on perceived judicial obstructionism, defenders of the Court, including constitutional scholars, contended it affirmed the framers' intent under Article III's Exceptions Clause, with the justices' restraint in not contesting the repeal preserving institutional balance rather than eroding independence. Whispers of against individual justices surfaced in radical circles post-Milligan, though no formal proceedings advanced, reflecting broader public and legislative frustration with the Court's federalism-oriented rulings that prioritized habeas protections and trials over expansive wartime or Reconstruction-era authority. Contemporary accounts attributed some accusations to Chase's lingering political ambitions, including his 1868 presidential bid against , suggesting personal motivations influenced moderate stances on cases. Proponents of the Court's approach, often aligned with Democratic or conservative Republican views, praised these decisions as bulwarks against federal overreach, emphasizing empirical continuity in the Court's operations—handling approximately 200-300 cases annually during the era without notable disruptions—as evidence against claims of partisan capitulation. Such defenses highlighted causal adherence to pre-war precedents on habeas and limits, countering bias narratives with the justices' unanimous or near-unanimous rebukes of executive excesses during the Civil War.

Legacy and Impact

Influence on Subsequent Constitutional Developments

The Slaughter-House Cases (1873), by narrowly construing the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect only federal citizenship rights against state infringement, redirected constitutional challenges to state economic regulations toward the Due Process Clause, fostering the development of substantive due process protections for economic liberties. This interpretive framework, echoed in Justice Stephen Field's dissent emphasizing liberty of contract, influenced subsequent decisions like Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897), which struck down state restrictions on out-of-state insurance policies under due process as infringing on the right to contract freely. The precedent contributed to the Lochner era (approximately 1897–1937), during which the Court invalidated over 200 state and federal economic laws, including maximum-hour regulations, on substantive due process grounds, prioritizing individual economic freedoms over state police powers until the shift in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937). The , particularly the 1871 overruling in Knox v. Lee, affirmed Congress's authority under the to issue currency as for pre-existing debts, establishing a doctrinal basis for expansive federal monetary powers decoupled from specie backing. This shift enabled the abandonment of the standard in 1933 and the validation of related measures in Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. (1935), which upheld the abrogation of gold clauses in private s amid the , thereby solidifying the modern system where currency value derives from government decree rather than commodity reserves. While providing continuity for contract impairment challenges under the Fifth Amendment, the cases' emphasis on wartime fiscal necessities set precedents critiqued for eroding gold-based constraints on inflation, as monetary expansion accelerated post-1971 . The Chase Court's reinforcement of dual federalism—preserving robust state sovereignty in areas outside explicit federal enumeration, as in Texas v. White (1869) affirming the Union's perpetuity while respecting state integrity—laid empirical groundwork for twentieth-century limitations on federal overreach, such as in United States v. E. C. Knight Co. (1895) confining the Commerce Clause to interstate transactions. This approach, while enabling retreats from aggressive Reconstruction-era civil rights enforcement by deferring to states on intrastate matters, prevented a unitary national state by constraining federal authority until the New Deal's commerce power expansions in cases like NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937). Historians note the dualism's role in maintaining institutional balance, averting centralized overreach that could undermine local governance, though it facilitated Southern states' evasion of federal protections for freedmen through the 1890s.

Historiographical Assessments and Debates

Historiographical assessments of the Chase Court (1864–1873) traditionally portray it as a transitional era in Supreme Court jurisprudence, bridging the pro-slavery inclinations of the Taney Court with the more assertive nationalism of later periods, while cautiously integrating the Reconstruction Amendments amid postwar exigencies. Jonathan Lurie's 2004 analysis describes the Court's output as "cautiously moderate," balancing the abolitionist imperatives of the Thirteenth Amendment with restorations of federalism and restraints on expansive war powers, as evidenced in decisions like Ex parte Milligan (1866), which curtailed military tribunals for civilians and expanded habeas corpus protections beyond Taney-era precedents. This view emphasizes empirical realism: the Court upheld Union preservation in Texas v. White (1869), affirming national sovereignty without fully endorsing radical centralization, reflecting Chase's own antislavery background tempered by political pragmatism. Debates persist over the Court's Reconstruction role, with some scholars lauding expansions in —such as broader habeas applications and validations of congressional enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment in cases like Ex parte Virginia (1870)—as empirical advances over prior courts, where Taney-era rulings had deferred more to state authority on individual rights. Critics, however, highlight failures to forge robust federal civil rights protections, notably the narrow reading of the Fourteenth Amendment's in (1873), which confined it largely to federal citizenship matters and deferred expansive equality claims to states, arguably forestalling "utopian" national interventions that risked Southern backlash and Union fragility. First-principles analyses, including those from constitutional originalists, defend this restraint as causally realistic, preserving economic liberties and state sovereignty against overreach, evidenced by the Court's slight conservative tilt in upholding contract rights and limiting mandates in Hepburn v. Griswold (1870, later overruled). Underrepresented conservative interpretations counter progressive narratives of the Court as a Reconstruction "saboteur," pointing to verifiable metrics: freedmen prevailed in approximately 60% of Supreme Court habeas and civil rights appeals during the era, higher than under Taney, debunking blanket sabotage claims through case-specific outcomes rather than politicized aggregates. These views, drawn from archival reviews of circuit rulings under Chase, attribute moderation to institutional caution amid congressional overrides (e.g., the 1867 Judiciary Act curbing appellate jurisdiction), prioritizing sustainable constitutional equilibrium over ideologically driven expansions that empirical history shows often eroded enforcement post-1877. Mainstream academic sources, potentially influenced by egalitarian biases, overemphasize shortcomings in gender and race equity (e.g., Bradwell v. Illinois, 1873), yet causal evidence from contemporaneous enforcement data underscores the Court's role in stabilizing federalism without which abolitionist gains might have unraveled amid partisan strife.

References

  1. https://supreme.justia.com/supreme-court-history/chase-court/
  2. https://www.oyez.org/justices/salmon_p_chase
  3. https://supremecourthistory.org/chief-justices/salmon-chase-1864-1873/
  4. https://supremecourthistory.org/history-of-the-courts/chase-court-1864-1873/
  5. https://home.treasury.gov/about/history/prior-secretaries/salmon-p-chase-1861-1864
  6. https://bioguide.congress.gov/search/bio/c000332
  7. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3655&context=vlr
  8. https://www.civilwarmonitor.com/the-death-of-roger-b-taney/
  9. https://supremecourthistory.org/history-of-the-courts/taney-court-1836-1864/
  10. https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/chase-salmon-portland
  11. https://guides.loc.gov/this-month-in-business-history/january/salmon-p-chase
  12. https://www.lincolncottage.org/lincolns-election-year-supreme-court-nominee/
  13. https://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/residents-visitors/cabinet-vice-presidents/cabinet-vice-presidents-salmon-p-chase-1803-1873/index.html
  14. https://www.nps.gov/apco/learn/historyculture/the-surrender-meeting.htm
  15. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/13th-amendment
  16. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/radical-republicans
  17. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/february-25/legal-tender-act-passed
  18. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment
  19. https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-138/federalism-rebalancing-and-the-roberts-court-a-departure-from-historical-patterns/
  20. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/habeas_corpus
  21. https://supreme.justia.com/justices/salmon-portland-chase/
  22. https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/courts/judicial-system/supreme-court-of-ohio/mjc/interest/grand-concourse/salmon-portland-chase/
  23. https://www.oyez.org/courts
  24. https://www.fjc.gov/history/courts/supreme-court-united-states-and-federal-judiciary
  25. https://www.fjc.gov/history/legislation/landmark-legislation-circuit-reorganization
  26. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Noah-H-Swayne
  27. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/law-and-history-review/article/justice-stephen-field-and-free-soil-free-labor-constitutionalism-reconsidering-revisionism/B5B729709C92F5DCAC36C4ED40AD404E
  28. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members_text.aspx
  29. https://www.fjc.gov/history/courts/supreme-court-united-states-succession-chart
  30. https://www.fjc.gov/history/spotlight-judicial-history/judicial-retirement
  31. https://supremecourthistory.org/appointments-of-the-justices/
  32. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/71/475
  33. https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/01/16/chief-justice-johnson-impeachment-trial/
  34. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm
  35. https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1851-1900/1866_06_13_14thAmendment/
  36. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S1-8-3/ALDE_00013559/
  37. https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/artifact/hr-605-act-amend-act-establish-judicial-courts-united-states-habeas-corpus-act-1867-july
  38. https://www.fjc.gov/history/cases/cases-that-shaped-the-federal-courts/ex-parte-mccardle
  39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2206303
  40. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/
  41. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/71/277/
  42. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/71us277
  43. https://www.fjc.gov/history/spotlight-judicial-history/circuit-riding
  44. https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1975/fall/civil-war-courts.html
  45. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/83/36/
  46. https://scholarship.law.pitt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1383&context=fac_articles
  47. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/law-and-social-inquiry/article/salmon-p-chase-and-constitutional-politics/95DAF13C3E062D2C0FC3738CBF887CF7
  48. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship/227/
  49. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2778226
  50. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/75/603/
  51. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/nkenlr21&section=18
  52. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/79/457/
  53. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1212&context=caselrev
  54. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/71/2/
  55. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/71us2
  56. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/ex-parte-milligan-2/
  57. https://www.quimbee.com/cases/ex-parte-milligan
  58. https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-long-shadow-of-ex-parte-milligan
  59. https://civilwaronthewesternborder.org/timeline/ex-parte-milligan
  60. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/74/700
  61. https://www.treasurydirect.gov/kids/history/history_civilwar.htm
  62. https://fee.org/articles/the-economic-costs-of-the-civil-war/
  63. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/goldin/files/goldin_economiccost.pdf
  64. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/71/333/
  65. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/71/277
  66. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/cummings-v-missouri/
  67. https://ballotpedia.org/CUMMINGS_v._THE_STATE_OF_MISSOURI_%281867%29
  68. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/83us36
  69. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/supreme-court-case-library/slaughter-house-casesbutchers-benevolent-assn-of-new-orleans-v-crescent-city-livestock-landing-slaughter-house-co
  70. https://www.fjc.gov/history/timeline/slaughterhouse-cases
  71. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/83us130
  72. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/83/130/
  73. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/83/130
  74. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-the-supreme-court-denies-the-practice-of-law-to-women
  75. https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/artifact/hr-240-legal-tender-act-february-25-1862
  76. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w21221/w21221.pdf
  77. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S030439321000125X
  78. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/75/603
  79. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/79/457
  80. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w5381/w5381.pdf
  81. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/legal-tender-cases
  82. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2006.00063.x
  83. https://insight.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2403&context=dlra
  84. https://www.jstor.org/stable/446432
  85. https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1587&context=etd
  86. https://www.jstor.org/stable/828795
  87. https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/artifact/act-amend-act-amend-judiciary-act-habeas-corpus-act-1868-march-27-1868
  88. https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2372&context=vlr
  89. https://www.scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1212&context=caselrev
  90. https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/chase-court-9781576078228/
  91. https://kansaspress.ku.edu/9780700608355/
  92. https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=fcj
  93. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/J/bo8925401.html
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.