Fletcher v. Peck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fletcher v. Peck

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued February 15, 1810
Decided March 16, 1810


Full case name:	Robert Fletcher v. John Peck

Citations:	10 U.S. 87; 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87; 3 L. Ed. 162;1810 U.S. LEXIS 322;

Prior history:	Demurrer overruled, D. Mass

Subsequent history:	None

Holding

The Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibited Georgia from voiding contracts for the transfer of land, even though they were secured through illegal bribery. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts affirmed.

Court membership

Chief Justice: John Marshall
Associate Justices: William Cushing, Samuel Chase, Bushrod Washington, William Johnson, Henry Brockholst Livingston, Thomas Todd

Case opinions

Majority by: Marshall
Joined by: Cushing, Chase, Washington, Livingston, Todd
Concurrence/dissent by: Johnson

Laws applied

U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 1

Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision. It was the first case in which the Supreme Court ruled a state law unconstitutional.

The case grew out of the 1795 Georgia state legislature's sale of land in the Yazoo River country (in what is now Mississippi) to private speculators in return for bribes. Voters rejected most of the incumbents in the next election and the next legislature, reacting to the public outcry, repealed the law and voided transactions made under it.

John Peck had purchased land that had previously been sold under the 1795 act. Peck sold this land to Robert Fletcher and in 1803, Fletcher brought suit against Peck, claiming that he did not have clear title to the land when he sold it.

The case reached the Supreme Court, which in a unanimous decision, ruled that the state legislature's repeal of the law was unconstitutional. The opinion, written by John Marshall, argued that the sale was a binding contract, which according to Article I, Section 10, Clause I (the Contract Clause) of the Constitution cannot be invalidated, even if illegally secured. Today the ruling further protects property rights against popular pressures, and is the earliest case of the Court asserting its right to invalidate state laws conflicting with the Constitution.