Supreme Court Wrapped is our signature series where we do two things:

First, we identify interesting trends across the Court’s cases. Thus far, the Court’s caseload has been light, so we’ve combined years. Moving forward, we’ll cover one year of cases at a time.

Second, we craft a fresh playlist inspired by the cases, one song per case. Follow our Spotify account here, this way you can listen to our case-inspired playlists anytime. Our newest playlist is embedded at the bottom of this post.

If you haven’t checked out our first installment, you should! From conflicts of interest to the Court’s first major constitutional question, you’ll want to read our analysis of the trends dominating the nation’s first cases.

Without further ado, here are five key takeaways from the Court’s cases decided between 1793-1795.

1. 9/12 cases involved foreign nations. Of those 9 cases involving foreign nations, 7 involved the French.

I have eaten too much baguette, and so has the Supreme Court, apparently.

The French dominated this era of the Court. But what’s crazy is at least five other nations showed up in the Supreme Court, too.

Here’s our count of parties connected to foreign nations. (And remember, I went to law school, so my math is probably poor.)

• Sweden: 1
• Denmark: 1
• The Netherlands: 1
• Portugal: 1
• Great Britain: 2
• France: 7

The Swedes, the Danish, and the Dutch were roped into these cases because they had their ships captured at sea — the Swedes in Glass v. The Sloop Betsey (1794), the Danish in Bingham v. Cabot I (1795), and the Dutch in Talbot v. Janson (1795).

The Portuguese entered the picture in Bingham v. Cabot I (1795) because the Portuguese owned the rapidly spoiling flour on the captured ship central to the case.

A British slave merchant was at the center of Georgia v. Brailsford II (1793) and Georgia v. Brailsford III (1794). And a ship suspected of belonging to the British underpinned Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators (1795).

As for the French…

The petitioner in Oswald III (1793) and Oswald IV (1793) was a French spy. In fact, his case had to be delayed because he was on a mission in Ireland. That delay allowed time for the political circumstances to shift in the U.S., which arguably helped him to win his case.

The French captured a ship giving rise to the Court’s first admiralty case, Glass.

In Bingham v. Cabot I, an American agent found himself entangled in a diplomatic crisis, all because he was stationed on the French island of Martinique.

United States v. Lawrence (1795) centered around a dispute between French consuls and New York District Court Judge John Lawrence.

In United States v. Peters (1795), the case concerned a ship thought to be French that hauled an American boat into the French territory of Haiti.

Finally, French citizenship took center stage in Talbot v. Janson (1795), as the Court was faced with two Americans claiming to be French citizens, and purporting to be sailing under French authority.

From 1793-1795, the Supreme Court was apparently the freaking United Nations.

2. Boat cases galore! 4/12 cases were admiralty cases, and 9/12 cases involved boats.

Put on your floaties. The Court heard four admiralty cases from 1793-1795: Glass, Penhallow, Peters, and Talbot. (Admiralty law, as we know, is the law of the sea.)

But what’s crazier is the Court heard a total of nine cases involving boats.

In Brailsford II and Brailsford III, the dispute centered around a debt for a shipment of slaves.

In Bingham, the dispute concerned the sale of a ship. In US v. Lawrence, the parties fought about the sufficiency of a ship’s paperwork.

Even the landmark case Chisholm v. Georgia involved a ship, because the original interested party was killed by a boat. Specifically, he was struck by a sail which “knocked [him] overboard,” and he drowned.

3. An old question is resolved, new questions arise.

After flirting with the question, the Court finally resolved the issue of whether a non-resident citizen could sue a State in Chisholm v. Georgia. The Court said yes. Then, the States changed the U.S. Constitution to say no.

With state sovereign immunity cemented into the Constitution, we look to new issues. Between 1793 and 1795, we had a few firsts:

• The first Criminal Law case in United States v. Hamilton.
• The first Evidence Law case in Bingham v. Cabot. (And another evidence issue reared its head in US v. Lawrence.)
• The first Expatriation Law case in Talbot.
• The first Admiralty Law case in Glass.

The variety of cases the Court is hearing, then, is growing.

We also saw the Supreme Court’s first and only reported jury trial in Brailsford III.

4. Lots of turnover on the bench. Who did we lose, and who entered the fray?

The Supreme Court saw quite a bit of turnover in its early years. Let’s recap.

When the Supreme Court was formed, Congress decided there would be six Justices — one “Chief Justice,” and five “Associate Justices.”

President Washington got to pick the first six guys who would sit on the bench.

He picked:

• John Jay (Chief Justice)
• John Rutledge
• William Cushing
• James Wilson
• John Blair Jr.; and
• James Iredell

John Rutledge resigned in 1791 before he ever heard a case at the Supreme Court, so President Washington had to nominate someone to take his place. Washington ultimately chose a guy named Thomas Johnson.

So the line-up became:

• John Jay (Chief Justice)
• John Rutledge
  • Thomas Johnson (new guy)
• William Cushing
• James Wilson
• John Blair Jr.; and
• James Iredell

Justice Johnson lasted about five months before he resigned as well, in 1793. In his place, President Washington appointed William Paterson.

So the bench became:

• John Jay (Chief Justice)
• John Rutledge
  • Thomas Johnson
    • William Paterson (new guy)
• William Cushing
• James Wilson
• John Blair Jr.; and
• James Iredell

In 1795, Chief Justice John Jay resigned because he was elected governor of New York. In his place, Georgia Washington selected John Rutledge, the first guy who resigned from the Supreme Court, to become Chief Justice.

• John Jay (Chief Justice)
  • John Rutledge (Chief Justice) (guess who’s back)
• John Rutledge
  • Thomas Johnson
    • William Paterson
• William Cushing
• James Wilson
• John Blair Jr.; and
• James Iredell

Finally, by the time we reach the end of 1795, we lose John Rutledge once again. You can read about his suicide attempt and failed nomination here.

The lineup going into 1796, then, is:

• John Jay (Chief Justice)
  • John Rutledge (Chief Justice)
• John Rutledge
  • Thomas Johnson
    • William Paterson
• William Cushing
• James Wilson
• John Blair Jr.; and
• James Iredell

President Washington would have to fill the Chief Justice’s seat yet again. And he would also have to deal with yet another surprise resignation. More to come…

5. The federal government flexes its muscles.

This United States, young as it may be, has backbone. The cases from 1793-1795 demonstrate a new nation’s federal government not cowering, but asserting its strength.

In Chisholm v. Georgia, the Supreme Court took a stand against the States, declaring that citizens could sue States they are not residents of. (Remember, the States punched back by ratifying the Eleventh Amendment to undo that decision.)

The Court also showed its teeth to the international community. In Glass, the Court essentially said, “We won’t be bullied by the French,” and they asserted the same thing in US v. Lawrence.

In Penhallow, a couple of the Justices write dynamically about the authority of the various permutations of the American government — pre-Articles of Confederation, during the Articles of Confederation, and finally under the authority of the Constitution.

And of course, we can’t forget how Congress tried to pull a “he belongs to intelligence” to keep their guy Bingham out of trouble… (Bingham v. Cabot)

---

Our Playlist

Check out our case-inspired playlist below and follow us on Spotify.

Oswald v. New York III – ghosted by Saint Harison. You can ghost your date, but you can’t ghost the Supreme Court!

Chisholm v. Georgia – King by XXXTENTACION. The States couldn’t handle the Court’s decision in Chisholm, so they passed an amendment to crown themselves kings.

Oswald v. New York IV – Gone Fishing by Flook. What song is more fitting for a case where the petitioner asked for a postponement because he was on a “secret, delicate, and dangerous [spy] mission” in Ireland?

Georgia v. Brailsford II + III – The Devil Wins by The Devil Makes Three. “I try so hard but sometimes the devil wins.” Indeed, the winner of the Supreme Court’s one and only reported jury trial was a slave merchant.

Glass v. The Sloop Betsey – Ballad of Ole’ Betsy by The Beach Boys. “Betsy’s seen more places than I’ll ever hope to see / Betsy’s been more loyal than any friend could be / With some she traveled fast, with others it was slow / Betsy’s seen them all, she’d seen them come and go…“

United States v. Hamilton – Whiskey River by Willie Nelson. Is there anything more American than starting an insurrection over a whiskey tax?

Bingham v. Cabot – Trouble by Coldplay. I figured I’d pick a Coldplay song for a case involving a Cabot, as it was a member of the very same Cabot family who would be caught on the infamous Coldplay kiss cam a couple of centuries later. (Is that mean?)

United States v. Lawrence – Stubborn Kind Of Fellow by Marvin Gaye. Justice Lawrence was so stubborn in his adherence to the law that I had to speak with an expert (Chief Justice John Marshall’s great-great-great grandson) to understand why.

Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators – Don’t Look Back In Anger by Oasis. Both parties in this case looked back in anger after three different permutations of the U.S. government ruled on this case — sometimes in their favor, sometimes in the other party’s favor.

United States v. Peters – Letters from Paris by Austin Farwell and Claudio Constantini. The lawyers in this case received important papers from France that may have changed the outcome of the case. If only the lawyers knew French.

Talbot v. Janson – Stay or Leave by Dave Matthews. For the expatriation case, you know?

Disclaimer: This playlist is provided for entertainment and informational purposes only. Lex Sans Latin is not affiliated with, sponsored by, or an official partner of Spotify or any artists featured in this playlist.

The inclusion of any songs or artists does not imply endorsement by Lex Sans Latin of the lyrics, themes, messages, or viewpoints expressed therein. All opinions, language, and creative content within the music remain solely those of the respective artists and creators.

Listeners engage with this playlist at their own discretion.

Leave us a comment to share something you’ve found interesting about the Supreme Court’s cases from 1793–1795!

Disclaimer: All content on Lex Sans Latin is provided for educational and informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. Nothing on this site creates an attorney–client relationship. If you need legal advice, please consult an attorney.

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.