The Contract Clause and Natural Law, Fletcher v. Peck

[A18]

Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810)

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/124/

Facts of the Case: In 1795, the Georgia state legislature passed a land grant awarding territory to four companies. The following year, however, the legislature voided the law and declared all rights and claims under it to be invalid. In 1800, John Peck acquired land that was part of the original legislative grant. He then sold the land to Robert Fletcher three years later, claiming that past sales of the land had been legitimate. Fletcher argued that since the original sale of the land had been declared invalid, Peck had no legal right to sell the land and thus committed a breach of contract.

Question Presented: Could the contract between Fletcher and Peck be invalidated by an act of the Georgia legislature?

Conclusion: In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that since the estate had been legally "passed into the hands of a purchaser for a valuable consideration," the Georgia legislature could not take away the land or invalidate the contract. Noting that the Constitution did not permit bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Court held that laws annulling contracts or grants made by previous legislative acts were constitutionally impermissible.

[Emsworth]

The Legislature of Georgia was fully entitled to grant land to private companies. There is no provision in the Constitution or laws of Georgia, as they stood in 1795, that contradicted this principle. The original grant of land was completely valid.

Georgia was not constitutionally entitled to impair the original sale of land by a later legislative enactment. The decision, therefore, was sound.

[A18]

This is Marshall at his worst. Not only did he invoke natural law, it was entirely unnecessary for reaching his conclusion.

Johnson's concurrence was even worse: "I ... declare that a state does not possess the power of revoking its own grants ... on a general principle ... which will impose laws even on the deity." At least Marshall would only impose natural law on the legislature, and left God out of it.

[Emsworth]

Johnson's concurrence was even worse: "I ... declare that a state does not possess the power of revoking its own grants ... on a general principle ... which will impose laws even on the deity."

Haha! I have never seen anything as ridiculous in a Supreme Court opinion.