The Federalist Papers · Chapter
LXXXII: The Judiciary Continued explained
Hamilton explores the relationship between state and federal courts, arguing that state courts will retain concurrent jurisdiction over federal cases unless explicitly excluded, and that appeals from state courts to the Supreme Court are co
What happens
Hamilton explores the relationship between state and federal courts, arguing that state courts will retain concurrent jurisdiction over federal cases unless explicitly excluded, and that appeals from state courts to the Supreme Court are constitutionally permissible and necessary to unify national justice.
Themes in this chapter
Federalism and the Necessity of Union
Hamilton emphasizes the state and national systems as 'kindred systems' and 'parts of one whole,' advocating for a cooperative judicial framework.
Constitutional Interpretation and Authority
The chapter delves into interpretive principles for determining the extent of federal judicial power and the retention of state court jurisdiction.
Characters to notice
- Publius
Author of the essay, presenting the argument for concurrent jurisdiction and appellate structure.
- Alexander Hamilton
Likely author of this Federalist Paper, writing as Publius to defend the judiciary provisions.
- Congress
Granted authority to ordain and establish inferior federal courts and to regulate appellate jurisdiction.
- The Judges
Implied as the officials who would preside over state and federal courts in concurrent jurisdiction cases.
Key passages
“The erection of a new government, whatever care or wisdom may distinguish the work, cannot fail to originate questions of intricacy and nicety; and these may, in a particular manner, be expected to flow from the establishment of a constitution founded upon the total or partial incorporation of a number of distinct sovereignties.”
Creating a new government inevitably raises complex questions, especially when it involves blending multiple sovereign states into one constitutional system.
Hamilton sets up the inherent complexity of federalism as the source of judicial questions.
“The state courts will retain the jurisdiction they now have, unless it appears to be taken away in one of the enumerated modes.”
State courts keep their existing authority unless the Constitution explicitly removes it in one of three specified ways.
Key principle: state jurisdiction is presumed to continue unless expressly excluded.
“The national and state systems are to be regarded as one whole. The courts of the latter will of course be natural auxiliaries to the execution of the laws of the Union, and an appeal from them will as naturally lie to that tribunal which is destined to unite and assimilate the principles of national justice.”
State and federal systems are parts of a single whole; state courts naturally help enforce federal laws, and appeals should go to the Supreme Court to ensure uniform national justice.
Hamilton argues for the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction over state courts to maintain consistency.