Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee

Audience

As a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee aimed to convince a national audience as to the importance of the federal government and its court system. Throughout his opinion, Story depicted the framers as “men of learning and integrity” who had banded together to create a constitution that would “endure through a long lapse of ages.” He framed his constitutional arguments in patriotic language, which was in vogue during the outburst of patriotism following the War of 1812. Like his mentor, Marshall, Story realized the importance of writing a decision that would appeal to a broad number of Americans and thus help solidify support for the federal courts.

More specifically, Story's decision sought to reassure American businessmen and foreign investors that the United States was a nation that respected property rights, the rule of law, and the obligation of contracts. This aided Story's and Marshall's goals to promote an effective legal system that would enhance a national market economy and a sense of cultural nationalism. Story had initially sought to achieve these purposes through the creation of a federal common law that would bring uniformity and oversight to the federal courts. Having failed in these efforts, Story now sought to use the federal judiciary to regulate state courts, particularly in commercially sensitive areas like land speculation. Story aimed specific parts of the decision at Roane and at the Richmond Junto. He sought to remind those who advocated for states' rights that their sentiments risked not only bringing chaos to the American constitutional order but also national security, in much the same way that the delegates to the Hartford Convention had undermined American resolve in the recent conflict with Great Britain.

In his concurring opinion, Johnson claimed that he agreed with Story's basic arguments but for different reasons. Nevertheless, Johnson invoked the Constitution as a “tripartite” agreement between the people, states, and the Constitution and described the Supreme Court as an impartial, reasonable body seeking to bring order to a chaotic system of state courts. He also brazenly took Roane and the Virginia courts to task for not merely challenging the authority of the Supreme Court but for cynically widening the controversy to provoke a showdown between federal and state powers.