Sovereign citizens are folks who live in the country, but believe they are exempt from the government’s power.¹ As a result, they don’t pay taxes, and they don’t respect the authority of courts, law enforcement, or the DMV.²

While contempt for the DMV may be a universal value that binds every American together regardless of class or creed, sovereign citizens take things much further. Just to give you a snapshot, the FBI classifies sovereign citizens as “anti-government extremists.”³

This case, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators, has become something of a calling card for the very same sovereign citizens who reject the government’s authority. They often cite to a passage they say is from Penhallow to defend their beliefs.

But the citation to Penhallow that sovereign citizens use is not actually a citation to Penhallow at all. It’s a complete fabrication.

Today, we’ll knock the LSD out of this “hallucination.”

---

This is an admiralty and constitutional law case coming out of New Hampshire.

Petitioner(s): John Penhallow and eleven other guys from New Hampshire who owned a ship called the McClary.

Respondent(s): Doane’s Administrators — not a shadowy organization, just the folks serving as administrators of Elisha Doane’s estate after he died.

This case was heard during the Washington Presidency, and this is the final case of the Jay Court.

The Court ultimately ruled in favor of Doane’s Administrators.

See the Court’s opinion here.

---

First, We Bid Farewell to Chief Justice John Jay

You may have noticed that Chief Justice John Jay has been absent the last few cases. We’ve been spending more time with our guy from Jersey, Justice William Paterson, and not so much with the Chief Justice.

That’s because, in 1794, President Washington asked Chief Justice Jay to get on a boat and sail to Great Britain to negotiate a treaty.⁴ (That’s not a common thing for a Supreme Court Justice to do today, but remember, the Supreme Court was very young, and the norm was still taking shape.)

Jay’s negotiations resulted in what we call “the Jay Treaty,” an agreement which would go on to fracture American politics.⁵ The People hated the deal, and they were vocal about their disapproval.⁶

As Ron Chernow writes, Chief Justice Jay “was burned in effigy in so many cities that he said he could have walked the length of America by the glow from his own flaming figure.”⁷

The outrage surrounding the Jay Treaty resulted in the destruction of George Washington’s relationships with James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, too.⁸

The Treaty and the fallout surrounding it makes for thrilling reading on its own, but our focus today is on Chief Justice Jay. I mention the Treaty because, when Chief Justice Jay was abroad negotiating it, he was elected Governor of New York.⁹ He learned about his victory when he returned to the United States.¹⁰

So, after the decision in Penhallow, John Jay resigned from the position of Chief Justice, leaving Philadelphia for New York.¹¹

Of course, Jay’s resignation left the position of Chief Justice open for the taking. We’ll take a look at who filled Jay’s position next time…

For now, let’s turn to Penhallow — the final case of the Jay Court era.

“This Cause Has Been Much Obscured…”

You know a legal opinion is going to be tough to decipher when a Justice begins the record with, “This cause has been much obscured by the irregularity of the pleadings, which present a medley of procedure, partly according to the common, and partly according to the civil, law.”¹²

And indeed, Penhallow presents probably the most tangled procedural web thus far in the Court’s history (which says a lot!)

We’ll keep the case summary simple and brief, though.

Legalizing Piracy

It’s like this.

This case’s procedural history is wild because we have rulings and appeals in courts spanning from (1) before the United States even had a constitution; (2) to the period when the U.S. was governed by the Articles of Confederation; (3) to the current legal regime, where we have the Constitution.

In a nutshell, that’s why this case is so convoluted — the parties dealt with lots of courts and lots of changes in the government.

Let’s begin with the laws that started this whole mess.

You don’t need to be a lawyer to know that taking a boat that isn’t yours is probably against the law. And in 1775, taking somebody else’s boat was against the law. But after the British used its navy to attack the homeland during the Revolutionary War, the Americans decided, You know what? Let’s get these bastards. We’re going to capture British boats, and we’re going to pass laws so that when we do it, the captures are legal and orderly.¹³

In other words, the U.S. legalized piracy against the British, and set up rules so the captures would stick.

As part of those rules, Congress commanded colonies to set up prize courts.¹⁴ I know what it sounds like, but “prize courts” aren’t sets for a game show. Prize courts are courts specifically focused on deciding whether ships were legally captured.

In compliance with Congress’s directions, in 1776, New Hampshire set up a prize court in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and commanded anyone who wanted to bring a prize to New Hampshire to file their paperwork with the court.¹⁵

Thereafter, there’d be a trial so the prize case could be adjudicated.¹⁶

Then, in 1777, the Congress formed an appeals court to hear appeals from the different State prize courts.¹⁷

Important reminder: All of this happened before we had the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution.

Enter Mr. Penhallow

So, we know the law. Now what happened?

John Penhallow, believe it or not, is not a Charles Dickens character. Rather, Penhallow was one of twelve very real citizens of New Hampshire who owned an armed American boat called the McClary.¹⁸

In 1777, the McClary captured the Susanna, a ship the McClary‘s crew believed was British, but was more likely American conducting trade with the British.¹⁹

The owner of the captured ship, the Susanna, was Elisha Doane, a citizen of Massachusetts. Notably, Elisha Doane was “one of the richest men in New England.”²⁰

Now remember, the U.S. wasn’t the Wild West when it came to prize cases. There were rules. And the rules said if you wanted to claim another ship was yours, you had to go to the prize court. So that’s exactly what Penhallow did.²¹

Penhallow won.²² Elisha Doane appealed, but he lost again.²³

Now get this. Elisha Doane was represented by John Adams, and the Doane matter was Adams’ very last case as a lawyer.²⁴ In fact, Adams writes in his autobiography that it was in the middle of this very trial that he was told he was “appointed to go to France” as a diplomat.²⁵

Adams writes,

“At the Tryal of the Cause at Portsmouth and while I was speaking in it, Mr. Langdon came in from Phyladelphia and leaning over the Bar whispered to me, that Mr. Deane was recalled, and I was appointed to go to France. As I could scarcely believe the News to be true, and suspected Langdon to  be sporting with me, it did not disconcert me. As I had never solicited such an Appointment, nor intimated to any one, the smallest inclination for it, the News was altogether unexpected.”²⁶

John Adams

So the score was 2-0 for Penhallow, and he defeated John Adams while he was at it, too!

Enter the Articles of Confederation

Now in 1778, something big happened — the Americans drafted the Articles of Confederation, the original governing documents of the United States of America.²⁷ By 1781, all of the States had ratified the Articles.²⁸ But once the Founders realized the Articles sucked, they hashed out the Constitution and ratified that instead.

When the Articles were the law of the land, they gave the federal government the power to establish courts to hear prize cases.²⁹ Accordingly, the federal government created the Court of Appeals in Cases of Capture, which went went live in 1780.³⁰

Empowered to hear appeals in prize cases, the new court took up Doane’s appeal.³¹

I guess third time’s a charm, because in 1783, the Court of Appeals in Cases of Capture ruled that New Hampshire’s judgment be “revoked, reversed and annulled,” and Doane should get his property back.³²

Doane won out after all.

The Death of Doane

After scrapping the Articles of Confederation, the States ratified the U.S. Constitution.³³ Article III of the Constitution established the federal court system.³⁴

This impacted Doane because, in order to force Penhallow and crew to pay up, Doane had to go to the newly established federal courts.

There was a hiccup, though. In 1783, Elisha Doane died.³⁵ Thereafter, letters of administration were granted to his widow, Anna Doane, and his son, Isaiah Doane.³⁶

Letters of administration are a court-issued legal document that appoints somebody called an administrator to handle a person’s assets after the person passes away, if the deceased passes away without a will.

So Elisha’s wife and son went on to pursue the claim, letters in hand, standing in Elisha Doane’s shoes. (That’s why they’re called, “Doane’s Administrators.”)

Well, the Circuit Court of New Hampshire ruled Penhallow had to pay up, and ordered that Penhallow pay the Doanes $38,518.69 in damages.³⁷

The Arguments

Penhallow went to the Supreme Court to challenge the lower court’s decision and made quite a few arguments. The main argument, though, was about jurisdiction.

Penhallow argued:

1. The court established by the Articles of Confederation didn’t have jurisdiction to hear my case. Look, way back in 1777, I won this case in New Hampshire, and New Hampshire had the final say over it. I don’t think that the court later established by the Articles had a right to mess with New Hampshire’s decision, which was final.³⁸
2. Doane is dead. Even if that Articles of Confederation court did have jurisdiction, Elisha Doane is dead, and the decree says the property is to be restored to Elisha Doane. Yes, a dead man’s relatives can come into his shoes to handle his affairs, but not without going through the proper process to be recognized by the appropriate courts. That hasn’t happened here.³⁹

Penhallow asked for the Articles of Confederation court’s decree granting the Doanes the win be “reversed, annulled, and held void.”⁴⁰

Doane’s Administrators argued:

1. Hey buddy…you showed up to court. Your argument that the court didn’t have jurisdiction is ridiculous.⁴¹ You can’t willingly go to court, participate, lose, and then say the court didn’t have a right to hear the case in the first place.
2. Yes, usually when a party to a lawsuit dies, the suit ends, but not where the party dying isn’t relevant to the cause. This was a case in rem, meaning a case against a thing instead of a person. (Remember the case Glass v. The Sloop Betsey? You can sue a boat.) This is a case in rem about the Susanna, so Elisha Doane being alive isn’t material to the case.⁴²

The Opinions

We have a set of seriatim opinions here, meaning each Justice gives his own opinion.

Justice Paterson

I admit I’m starstruck by the eloquence of Justice Paterson’s opinion, and it’s not because he’s repping Jersey.

The way Justice Paterson writes here is like an astronomer charting the movement of a comet. He focuses his eye on the big issue (jurisdiction) and follows it as it shifts from court to court to court.

Even though it’s not pertinent to the substance of his opinion, I have to highlight how Justice Paterson starts his opinion. He uses diplomatic language to describe what a mess this case is, writing, “The pleadings consist of a heap of materials, thrown together in an irregular manner, and, if examined by the strict rules of common law, cannot stand the test of legal criticism. We are, however, to view the proceedings as before a court of admiralty, which is not governed by the rigid principles of common law. Order and systematic arrangement are no small beauties in juridical proceedings; and whatever may be said to the contrary, it will, on fair investigation, appear, that good pleading is founded on sound logic and good sense.”⁴³

Turning to the substance of the arguments, Justice Paterson makes clear that this case is all about jurisdiction, or the right of a court to hear a case. He writes, “In every step we take, the point of jurisdiction meets us.”⁴⁴

So Justice Paterson looks at each court at every step of the litigation and determines whether each court had a right to give a decision.

The idea is, if each court at each step of the litigation properly had jurisdiction, then Doane’s Administrators win, because the process that played out was legit.

First thing’s first: Were those OG New Hampshire prize courts legit?

Justice Paterson writes, “Much has been said respecting the powers of congress [before the Articles of Confederation]. On this part of the subject, the counsel on both sides displayed great ingenuity and erudition, and that too in a style of eloquence equal to the magnitude of the question. The powers of congress were revolutionary in their nature, arising out of events, adequate to every national emergency, and co-extensive with the object to be attained. Congress was the general, supreme and controlling council of the nation, the centre of union, the centre of force, and the sun of the political system.”⁴⁵

(See, I’m not the only one using space metaphors.)

He continues, “In every government, whether it consists of many states, or of a few, or whether it be of a federal or consolidated nature, there must be a supreme power or will; the rights of war and peace are component parts of this supremacy, and incidental thereto is the question of prize. The question of prize grows out of the nature of the thing. If it be asked, in whom, during our revolution war, was lodged, and by whom was exercised, this supreme authority? No one will hesitate for an answer. It was lodged in, and exercised by, congress…”⁴⁶

Justice Paterson proceeds to liken the Congress to Zeus.

He writes, “As to war and peace, and their necessary incidents, congress, by the unanimous voice of the people, exercised exclusive jurisdiction, and stood, like Jove, amidst the deities of old, paramount and supreme…”⁴⁷

In sum, Justice Paterson argues that because the Congress of old was legit, the New Hampshire prize courts that Congress commanded be created were legit.

Second question: Was the Articles of Confederation court of appeals legit?

Justice Paterson answers, Yeah, the Articles of Confederation gave Congress the right to deal with admiralty cases.⁴⁸

That means that when the appeals court said New Hampshire’s decision should be reversed and annulled, swinging the win from Penhallow to Doane, that was legit too.

Justice Paterson writes, “This decree being made by a court, constitutionally established, of competent authority, and the highest jurisdiction, is conclusive and final…The court of appeals was competent to the decision; they have adjudicated as well on the jurisdiction as the merits of the cause, and we must suppose that they have acted properly.”⁴⁹

Last question: Is the new federal court created by the Constitution legit?

Unsurprisingly, Justice Paterson says that the federal court system (the one which he is a Justice of) is legitimate as well. Listen to this. He explains, “The existence of the court of appeals terminated with the old government…The property was not restored to the libellants, nor were they compensated in damages; of course, the decree in their favor remains unsatisfied. They had no remedy at common law; they had none in equity; the only forum, competent to give redress, is the district court of New Hampshire, because it has admiralty jurisdiction. There they applied, and in my opinion, with great propriety.”⁵⁰

Then, Justice Paterson delivers an all-timer of a bar. He writes, “Judges may die, and courts be at an end; but justice still lives, and though she may sleep for a while, will eventually awake, and must be satisfied.”⁵¹

Freakin Robert Jordan on the bench over here!

Ultimately, Justice Paterson reasons that Doane’s Administrators win out, because each court had jurisdiction, and the last court to hear the case ruled in favor of the Elisha Doane.⁵²

Justice Iredell

Justice Iredell conducts a similar analysis, asking whether the prior courts had jurisdiction. In doing so, he writes in a lofty manner about constitutional government and representative democracy.

He concludes forcefully, proclaiming, “I, therefore, have not the smallest doubts, that the decision of the [Articles of Confederation] court, in 1783, was final and conclusive as to the parties to the decree. And this point appears to me so plain, that I think it useless to take notice of any authorities quoted on either side, in relation to it, none of them, I conceive, in any manner contravening the conclusive quality of such decrees, upon the principles I have stated, and some of them, clearly, and beyond all question, supporting it.”⁵³

You can’t say he lacks confidence…

So Justice Iredell ultimately agrees that there was continuity from court to court to court, so he gives Doane’s Administrators the win.

Justice Blair

Justice Blair is in an awkward position here, as he was the judge who happened to be sitting on the Circuit Court in New Hampshire when the Doanes came to it for relief.

Unlike Justice Iredell, who puffs his chest while delivering his opinion, Justice Blair takes on the tone of Pooh Bear, expressing relief at having his brothers on the bench reviewing his decision because the case is damned difficult.

Justice Blair writes, “When this cause came before me, at Exeter, in New Hampshire, I felt myself in a delicate situation, in having a cause of such magnitude, and at the same time, of such novelty and difficulty, as to have drawn the judgment of men of eminence different ways, brought before me for my single decision. It was, however, a consolation to know, that whatever that decision might be, it was not intended to be final, and I can truly say, it will give me pleasure to have any errors I may have committed, corrected in this court.”⁵⁴

Something kind of cool about Justice Blair’s opinion is his reference to a prior Supreme Court case, Glass v. The Sloop Betsey, which affirmed that the the Constitution empowers the federal courts to hear admiralty cases. Justice Blair cited to Glass to support the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction.⁵⁵

Ultimately, Justice Blair affirms his prior decision, agreeing that Doane’s Administrators are entitled to be paid out.

Justice Cushing

Justice Cushing agrees with his fellow Justices on the same grounds.⁵⁶

The Decision

The Court ultimately ordered Penhallow and his co-owners to pay Doane’s Administrators $16,360.68.⁵⁷

The Supreme Court’s First Hallucinated Case

Today, the Penhallow case is famous, but not for anything it says.

Let me explain.

When A.I. (artificial intelligence) spits out incorrect information, we say the A.I. is hallucinating.

(Personally, I call that lying, but the tech bros call it hallucinating.)

Therefore, when A.I. spits out an inaccurate legal citation or hallucinates a fake case, we call those things a hallucinated citation or a hallucinated case.

Why are we talking about A.I. in this post about a Supreme Court case from 1795? Well, Penhallow has apparently been cited by sovereign citizens — you know, those rowdy folks we mentioned at the top? — for years to justify their beliefs. The trouble is, they’ve been citing to a quote that is totally made up.

The fake quote attributed to Penhallow is, “Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.”⁵⁸

I don’t know what the hell that’s supposed to mean, but sovereign citizens apparently whip out that phrase whenever they’re pulled over or asked to provide I.D. at the DMV, or something.⁵⁹

If you look up the quote, you’ll find tons of pleadings replete with errors which authoritatively cite to it and attribute it to Penhallow. It’s kind of stunning, considering Penhallow isn’t hidden behind lock and key. Like, anyone can just look it up.

My favorite pleading is this one in Owens v. Zucker, where the petitioner cites to Penhallow to support the proposition that “attorneys are considered foreign agents under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and are subjects of the Bar Association.”⁶⁰

What’s so interesting about the fact that Penhallow has become a (balloon) sword for sovereign citizens is that the real Penhallow case is actually extremely pro-government. We saw how the Justices, particularly Paterson and Iredell, spilled a lot of ink justifying the authority of each permutation of American government.

Using Penhallow to support the proposition that the government has no jurisdiction over a citizen is like using White-Out to write a letter. It just doesn’t make sense.

Final Reflections

Personally, my biggest takeaway from this case is Justice Paterson’s quote.

“Judges may die, and courts be at an end; but justice still lives, and though she may sleep for a while, will eventually awake, and must be satisfied.”

Justice William Paterson

I’ve got to frame that and put it up next to my raccoon portrait.

Until then, take this lesson from Penhallow: Just because something’s got a cite next to it, doesn’t mean you should take it as Gospel. Whether or not you’re in practice, you should always look up the authority being cited.

In fact, it’s generally good practice to read primary sources for yourself. (That’s why we footnote practically every fact in every article we write!)

Otherwise, you may find yourself petitioning the Supreme Court with nothing more than a hallucinated case in hand.

---

What do you think of this case? Leave a comment!

Studying this case for class? I offer 1-on-1, virtual law school tutoring. Learn more here.

Here’s a Bluebook cite for ya – Johnathan J. Azar, The Supreme Court’s First Hallucinated Case: Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators (1795) (July 7, 2026)

FOOTNOTES

1. Federal Bureau of Investigation, The Sovereign Citizen Movement (Apr. 13, 2010), https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2010/april/sovereigncitizens_041310/domestic-terrorism-the-sovereign-citizen-movement ↩︎
2. Id. ↩︎
3. Id. ↩︎
4. John Jay, Historical Society of the New York Courts, https://history.nycourts.gov/figure/john-jay/ (last visited July 7, 2026) ↩︎
5. Stuart Leibiger, The Jay Treaty, Bill of Rights Institute, https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/the-jay-treaty/ (last visited July 7, 2026). ↩︎
6. U.S. Dep’t of State, Off. of the Historian, John Jay’s Treaty, 1794–95, Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations, https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/jay-treaty (last visited July 7, 2026). ↩︎
7. Ron Chernow, Alexander Hamilton 487 (Penguin Books 2005). ↩︎
8. James M. Lindsay, The Senate Approves the 1796 Jay Treaty, Council on Foreign Relations (June 24, 2020), https://www.cfr.org/articles/the-senate-approves-the-1796-jay-treaty ↩︎
9. John Jay, Historical Society of the New York Courts, https://history.nycourts.gov/figure/john-jay/ (last visited July 7, 2026) ↩︎
10. Id. ↩︎
11. Letter from John Jay to President George Washington (June 29, 1795), in 4 The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay vol 4. 142 (Henry P. Johnston ed., G.P. Putnam’s Sons 1893). ↩︎
12. Penhallow v. Doane’s Adm’rs, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 54, 54 (1795). ↩︎
13. Id. at 54-56 ↩︎
14. Id. ↩︎
15. Id. at 57-60 ↩︎
16. Id. ↩︎
17. Id. at 60 ↩︎
18. Id. ↩︎
19. Id; 2 Legal Papers of John Adams 356 (L. Kinvin Wroth & Hiller B. Zobel eds., Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press 1965); Note, aside from the Supreme Court’s record, the other historical documentation I found about this case refers to the ship as the Lusanna. ↩︎
20. 2 Legal Papers of John Adams 355 (L. Kinvin Wroth & Hiller B. Zobel eds., Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press 1965) ↩︎
21. Penhallow v. Doane’s Adm’rs, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 54, 60-61 (1795). ↩︎
22. Id. at 61 ↩︎
23. Id. ↩︎
24. Charles Storer to John Adams (Apr. 7, 1786), in 18 The Papers of John Adams 236, 238 n.3 (Gregg L. Lint et al. eds., 2016). ↩︎
25. John Adams, Diary, Dec. 1, 1806, Adams Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society, https://www.masshist.org/publications/adams-papers/index.php/view/DJA04d00 ↩︎
26. Id. ↩︎
27. Penhallow v. Doane’s Adm’rs, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 54, 61-62 (1795). ↩︎
28. Id. ↩︎
29. Id. at 62 ↩︎
30. Id. ↩︎
31. Id. ↩︎
32. Id. ↩︎
33. Id. ↩︎
34. U.S. Const. art. III ↩︎
35. Penhallow v. Doane’s Adm’rs, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 54, 62 (1795). ↩︎
36. Id.; 2 Legal Papers of John Adams 359 (L. Kinvin Wroth & Hiller B. Zobel eds., Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press 1965). ↩︎
37. Penhallow v. Doane’s Adm’rs, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 54, 64 (1795). ↩︎
38. Id. at 66-71 ↩︎
39. Id. at 72 ↩︎
40. Id. at 66 ↩︎
41. Id. at 73 ↩︎
42. Id. at 78 ↩︎
43. Id. at 79 ↩︎
44. Id. at 80 ↩︎
45. Id. ↩︎
46. Id. ↩︎
47. Id. at 81 ↩︎
48. Id. at 85 ↩︎
49. Id. ↩︎
50. Id. at 86 ↩︎
51. Id. ↩︎
52. Id. at 89 ↩︎
53. Id. at 97 ↩︎
54. Id. at 108 ↩︎
55. Id. ↩︎
56. Id. at 116-120 ↩︎
57. Id. at 120 ↩︎
58. Petition for Rehearing at 5, Owens v. Zucker, No. 18-7897 (U.S. May 14, 2019). ↩︎
59. See the work of Robert R. Sudy, Website: Freeman Delusion: The Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Argument in Australia ↩︎
60. Petition for Rehearing at 5, Owens v. Zucker, No. 18-7897 (U.S. May 14, 2019). ↩︎

This blog may include quotations or excerpts from judicial opinions, statutes, scholarly articles, books, and other primary or secondary sources. Such materials are used for purposes of commentary, criticism, teaching, scholarship, and research in accordance with the fair use doctrine under U.S. copyright law (17 U.S.C. § 107). All cited materials are attributed to their original sources to the extent reasonably possible.

Any tutoring or instructional services offered are educational in nature and are not a substitute for legal advice or legal representation.