Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 U.S. 409

Hayburn's case

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided January 1, 1792

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1792

Hayburn's Case, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 409 (1792), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States was invited to rule on whether certain non-judicial duties could be assigned by Congress to the federal circuit courts in their official capacity. This was the first time that the Supreme Court addressed the issue of justiciability. Congress eventually reassigned the duties in question, and the Supreme Court never gave judgment in this case.

Source: Wikipedia ↗

1 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““That by the Constitution of the United States the government thereof is divided into three distinct and independent branches, and that it is the duty of each to abstain' from, and to oppose, encroachments on either. “That neither the legislative nor the executive branches can constitutionally assign to the judicial any duties but such as are properly judicial, and to be performed in a judicial manner. “That the duties assigned to the Circuit Courts, by this act, are not of.that description, and that the act itself does not appear to contemplate them as such, inasmuch as it subjects the decisions of these eourts, made pursuant to those duties, first to the consideration and suspension of the Secretary of War, and then to the revision of the Legislature ; whereas, by the Constitution, neither the Secretary of War, nor any other executive officer, nor even the Legislature, are authorized to sit as a eoirt of errors on.the judicial acts or opinions of this court.””

quoted by 8 later decisions, including Beed v. County Com'rs, In Re Opinion of the Judges

“[t]hat by the Constitution of the United States, the government thereof is divided into three distinct and independent branches, and that it is the duty of each to abstain from, and to oppose, encroachments on either.... [The Act] subjects the decisions of these courts, made pursuant to those [judicial] duties, first to the consideration and suspension of the secretary of war, and then to the revision of the Legislature; whereas, by the constitution, neither the secretary of war, nor any other executive officer, nor even the Legislature, are authorized to sit as a court of errors on the judicial acts or opinions of this court.”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., National Treasury Employees Union v. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Cited in Anderson (1889)’s definition of “Judge”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Petition denied / appeal dismissed · 6–0 · Decided 1792

How this case has been cited

Cited by 491 later decisions (87 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Buckley v. Valeo (1976), Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. (1957)

134 federal appellate · 53 district · 68 state decisions — followed in 21 states

1040179218001810182018301840185018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1THIS was a motion for a mandamus to be dhefted to the Circuit. Court for the diftriCt of Petinfylváma, commanding the faid court tb proceed in a certain petition of Wm. Hay-btirn, who had applied, tb bé pUton-the pendón lift of the United States, as an invalid penfioner^ "

¶2The - principal cafe arofe upon the a£t of Congrefs paifed the ⅞3d of March, 1792.

¶3The Attorney (general (Randolph)

¶4who made the motion for the mandamus, -having premifed that, it was done ex offi-cio, without an application from any particular petfon, but with a view to procure the execution of an aCt of Congrefs, particularly interefting to a meritorious and unfortunate dais of citizens, the Court declared that they entertained great doubt upon his right, under fuch circumftances, and in a cafe of this kind,. to proceed ex 'ijffcip ¡ and directed him to ftate the principles on which he ' attempted, to fupport the right. The Attorney General, accordingly, entered into an¡ elaborate defeription of the powers -aiid duties of his office:—

¶5But

¶6the Court'

¶7being divided in opinion on that queftion, . the motion, made ex officio, was not allowed.

¶8The Attorney General then changed the ground of his inter-pofition, declaring it to be at the inftance, and on behalf of Hay-hum, a party interefted ;. and he entered into the merits of the cafe,, upon the aft of Congrefs, and the refufal.of the Judges to carry it into effeft,

¶9The Court obferved, that they would hold the motion. . under advifement, until the next ■ term ; but no decifion was-Over pronounced,' as the. Legiflat-ure, at an an intermedi*410ate feffion; provided, in another Way, for the relief of the penfioners.

¶103R.ULB.

¶11*411Rule..

¶12THE' Attorney Genera! having moved for information, relative to the fyftem of practice by which the Attornies and Counfellors of this court íhall regulate them (elves, and of *412the place in which rules in caufes here depending íháll be obtain* ed, the Chief Justice, at a fubfequent day, Rated, that

¶13*413The Court coniidets the practice of the courts of King's Bench and Chancery in England, as affording ■ outlines for the *414prañice of this court; and that they will, from time to time, make fuch alterations therein, as circumftances may render ne-ceflarjr

/2/us/409 · .json · Public domain