The Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee case is a Supreme Court case from 1816 that challenged appellate jurisdiction over state court decisions, specifically, the ability of the Supreme Court to hear and decide state cases where state court’s decided cases based on federal law. A British loyalist, Lord Fairfax, owned land in Virginia during the Revolutionary War when Virginia seized the land and gave a tract of it to David Hunter. Following the war, the United States entered into a treaty with Great Britain guaranteeing protection of lands owned by British loyalists. Once Lord Fairfax died and his land ownership passed to his heir, Thomas Martin, he sought to recover the land and sued. The Virginia court ruled that Fairfax and Martin were the owners of the land but upon appeal to the state appellate court, it was reversed in favor of Hunter. Martin appealed to the Supreme Court who decided for Martin pursuant to the treaty.
The issue that went before the court was if the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear cases on appeal from state …show more content…
The Court flatly declared that the “Constitution does not speak of freedom of contract” and that such a freedom is thus “a qualified, and not an absolute, right” under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court argued that while the Fourteenth Amendment bans arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty, and property by the state (or protects “procedural” due process, e.g., a right to a fair trial), it does not prohibit the states’ ability to “reasonably” regulate the terms of certain activities for the public good.17 They also ruled that setting the minimum wage was lawful by the state in that it was reasonable and not arbitrary to protect the health and welfare of workers. So the setting of a minimum wage meant that a guaranteed minimum would be paid and the employee was free to negotiate for higher wages if they so
The issue that went before the court was if the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear cases on appeal from state …show more content…
The Court flatly declared that the “Constitution does not speak of freedom of contract” and that such a freedom is thus “a qualified, and not an absolute, right” under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court argued that while the Fourteenth Amendment bans arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty, and property by the state (or protects “procedural” due process, e.g., a right to a fair trial), it does not prohibit the states’ ability to “reasonably” regulate the terms of certain activities for the public good.17 They also ruled that setting the minimum wage was lawful by the state in that it was reasonable and not arbitrary to protect the health and welfare of workers. So the setting of a minimum wage meant that a guaranteed minimum would be paid and the employee was free to negotiate for higher wages if they so