Hayburn’s Case: The Issue of Justiciability

Hayburn’s Case, 2 U.S. 409 (1792) is one of the earliest decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Although the Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized the creation of the Court, the justices did not consider their first case until 1792.

Hayburn’s case presented the Court’s first opportunity to decide the justiciability of a legal matter under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which refers to the Court’s authority to adequately resolve a dispute. In the end, the justices never rendered a final decision.

The Legal Background

Under the Invalid Pensions Act of 1792, Congress required the United States Circuit Courts to hear disability pension claims filed by Revolutionary War veterans. The statute mandated that the courts determine the monthly payments owed to the veterans based on their degree of disability and certify the findings to the secretary of war, who was authorized to reject claims if he suspected ”imposition or mistake.”

Five of the then-six justices of the Supreme Court, who were also serving as circuit judges, wrote letters to President George Washington in which they declined to hear the claims and questioned the constitutionality of the Invalid Pensions Act. They argued that the duties imposed by the act were not judicial. John Jay, William Cushing, James Wilson, John Blair, Jr., and James Iredell, who served as members of the United States Circuit Courts for the Districts of New York, Pennsylvania and North Carolina, wrote:

[C]ourts cannot be warranted, as we conceive, by virtue of that part of the Constitution delegating Judicial power, for the exercise of which any act of the legislature is provided, in exercising (even under the authority of another act) [2 U.S. 402, 413] any power not in its nature judicial, or, if judicial, not provided for upon the terms the Constitution requires.

The justices further maintained that authorizing the Executive Branch to oversee their judicial findings, and potentially reversing or revising the decisions, violated the separation of powers set forth in the first three articles of the Constitution. “And we beg leave to add, with all due deference, that no decision of any court of the United States can, under any circumstances, in our opinion, agreeable to the Constitution, be liable to a reversion, or even suspension, by the Legislature itself, in whom no judicial power of any kind appears to be vested, but the important one relative to impeachments,” the justices wrote to President Washington.

In the wake of the justices’ refusal to consider the applications, United States Attorney General Randolph filed a motion for mandamus in the Supreme Court to direct the Circuit Court in Pennsylvania to proceed on William Hayburn’s pension petition.

The Court’s Opinion

The Attorney General initially brought his petition ex officio, without an application from any particular person, but with a view to procure the execution of an act of Congress. In response to questions from the justices regarding his authority to bring the motion, Randolph reportedly “entered into an elaborate description of the powers and duties of his office.” When several justices remained unconvinced, the Attorney General returned to the Court as Hayburn’s attorney. As the legal representative of an interested party, Randolph challenged the Circuit Courts’ ability to defy an act of Congress and, in doing so, deny Hayburn his pension.

The Court stated that it would hold the motion under advisement until the next term; however, it never published a decision, as Congress amended the Pension Act to rectify the offending provisions. Nonetheless, the Hayburn’s Case set the stage for the Supreme Court to later find statutes enacted by Congress unconstitutional.