Fletcher V Peck: Constitutionality Of State Laws

In 1795, the Georgia legislature sold 35 million acres of state land, known as the Yazoo lands, to private companies. The Yazoo Land Act of 1795 was later deemed corrupt, as many officials had accepted bribes to enable the sale. In 1796, the legislature passed an act to revoke the sale. John Peck, who had purchased some of the land in question, sold it to Robert Fletcher, who sued Peck in 1803, claiming that Peck did not have a clear title to the land when he sold it. The case, Fletcher v. Peck, was the first time the Supreme Court ruled a state law unconstitutional, holding that the Georgia legislature's repeal of the Yazoo Land Act violated the Contracts Clause of the Constitution.

Explore related products

The Great Yazoo Lands Sale: The Case of Fletcher v. Peck (Landmark Law Cases and American Society)

$24.99 $29.99

Yazoo Law and Politics in the New Republic the Case of Fletcher V. Peck

$18.42 $21.95

On Constitutional Ground

$19.25 $35

Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$240.57 $359

Constitutional Law: Principles and Polices (Aspen Treatise)

$104.97 $126.95

Constitutional Law: a QuickStudy Laminated Reference Guide

$8.32 $8.95

The Contracts Clause

In 1795, the Georgia legislature sold approximately 35 million acres of state land, known as the Yazoo lands, to private companies at a significantly discounted price. It was later discovered that many legislators had accepted bribes to facilitate this sale, leading to the scandal being dubbed the Yazoo land-grant scandal. Following this revelation, several lawmakers were voted out of office, and the new legislature passed a law in 1796 to revoke the previous land sales and publicly burned the original law to emphasise the point.

John Peck, a speculator from Massachusetts, had purchased some of the land in question before the 1796 repeal and subsequently sold it to Robert Fletcher, his colleague from New Hampshire. Fletcher sued Peck in 1803, arguing that Peck did not have a clear title to the land when he sold it. The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court, which had to decide whether the Georgia legislature's repeal of the original land sales was constitutional.

Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for the Court, held that the Georgia legislature's repeal of the Yazoo Land Act of 1795 violated the Contracts Clause of the Constitution. Marshall reasoned that once a law operates as a contract, it cannot be repealed to divest the rights that flowed from that contract. In his opinion, Marshall emphasised that "when absolute rights have vested under [a] contract, a repeal of the law cannot divest those rights." The Court also ruled that Georgia did not possess "sovereign power" to resolve political questions regarding Native American land titles.

The decision in Fletcher v. Peck established an important precedent for the sanctity of legal contracts and hinted that Native Americans did not hold complete title to their lands. This case marked the first time the Supreme Court asserted its power to strike down a state law as unconstitutional, shaping the Court's role in interpreting and safeguarding the Constitution.

The sanctity of legal contracts

The case of Fletcher v Peck (1810) is a landmark decision in United States Supreme Court history, as it was the first time the Court ruled a state law unconstitutional. The case centred on the constitutionality of a state law that impaired the obligation of a contract, and in doing so, set a precedent for the sanctity of legal contracts.

Fletcher v Peck concerned the sale of a large parcel of land, known as the Yazoo lands, by the state of Georgia to private companies in 1795. The Yazoo lands were a 35-million-acre region surrounding the Yazoo River, owned by and home to the Yazoo Nation. Following the Treaty of Paris, which ended the American Revolution, Georgia claimed possession of this land. However, it was later discovered that many officials had approved the sale in exchange for bribes, leading to the scandal becoming known as the Yazoo land-grant scandal.

In 1796, the Georgia legislature passed an act to rescind the previous sale, essentially declaring that the original land sales had never legally occurred. John Peck, a speculator from Massachusetts, purchased some of this land and sold it to Robert Fletcher, from New Hampshire. Fletcher then brought a suit against Peck in 1803, claiming that Peck did not have clear title to the land when he sold it.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Georgia legislature's repeal of the original sale was unconstitutional and violated the Contracts Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 10), which prohibits states from passing any "law impairing the obligation of contracts". Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that the sale was a binding contract, and even though it may have been illegally secured, it could not be invalidated. This ruling established the principle that once a contract has been formed, the rights acquired under it cannot be taken away by a change in the law.

The decision in Fletcher v Peck created a growing precedent for the sanctity of legal contracts and the protection of vested contractual rights. It also hinted at the idea that Native Americans did not hold complete title to their own lands, an idea that was fully realised in Johnson v McIntosh. The case demonstrated the Court's power to strike down state laws that violated the US Constitution, setting an important precedent for the interpretation and enforcement of contractual obligations in the future.

The role of federal courts

In the early 19th century, the state of Georgia claimed ownership of a vast region known as the Yazoo lands, which were originally inhabited by the Yazoo Nation. The Georgia legislature sold this land to private companies at extremely low prices, in what became known as the Yazoo Land-Grant Scandal. It was later revealed that many legislators had accepted bribes to facilitate these sales. After several lawmakers were voted out of office, the new legislature passed a law in 1796 to revoke the previous sales and publicly burned the original law to emphasise its invalidation.

John Peck, a land speculator, purchased some of the disputed land and sold it to Robert Fletcher. Fletcher sued Peck, arguing that he did not have clear title to the land when he sold it. The case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which unanimously ruled that the Georgia legislature's repeal of the original land sales was unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the opinion for the Court, asserting that the sale was a binding contract protected by the Contracts Clause of the Constitution.

The decision in Fletcher v. Peck established an important precedent for the sanctity of legal contracts and the limits of state power. It affirmed that federal courts have the authority to invalidate state laws that conflict with the US Constitution. This case also highlighted the potential for legislative corruption and the need for judicial oversight to protect contractual rights and property ownership.

In summary, the role of federal courts in Fletcher v. Peck demonstrated their power to interpret and enforce the Contracts Clause of the Constitution, safeguarding contractual rights and curbing state legislative overreach. This case continues to shape the federal judiciary's role in ensuring that state laws comply with constitutional principles.

Explore related products

Constitutional Law (University Casebook Series)

$305

An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100+ Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know

$26 $34.95

Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$95 $345

Constitutional Law For Dummies

$18 $29.99

A Short & Happy Guide to Constitutional Law

$28

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: Individual Rights

$76.95

State power

The constitutional issue in Fletcher v. Peck centred on the power of state legislatures to void original land sales and, more broadly, the power of states to pass laws that impair contractual obligations.

In 1795, the Georgia legislature sold a large amount of state land, known as the Yazoo lands, to private companies. The Yazoo Land Act of 1795 was, however, mired in corruption, with many officials accepting bribes to facilitate the sale. Following this, in 1796, the new legislature passed an act to revoke the previous sale, with the original law being publicly burned. John Peck, a speculator, purchased some of the land in question and sold it to Robert Fletcher. Fletcher then brought a suit against Peck, arguing that Peck did not have a clear title to the land when he sold it.

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled that the Georgia legislature's repeal of the Yazoo Land Act was unconstitutional and violated the Contracts Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 10). Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that the sale was a binding contract, which, under the Contracts Clause, could not be invalidated, even if it was illegally secured. This set a precedent for the sanctity of legal contracts and the protection of property rights.

The case of Fletcher v. Peck was significant as it was the first time the Supreme Court asserted its power to strike down a state law as unconstitutional, establishing the principle that state laws could be invalidated if they conflicted with the U.S. Constitution. This decision also hinted that Native Americans did not hold complete title to their lands, an idea that would be fully realised in Johnson v. McIntosh.

Native American land rights

The constitutional issue in Fletcher v. Peck centred on the question of whether federal courts could strike down state laws that violated the US Constitution. The case established an important precedent in this regard, with the Supreme Court ruling that a state law was unconstitutional for the first time.

The specific context of Fletcher v. Peck involved the sale of Native American land, specifically the Yazoo lands, by the state of Georgia. In 1795, the Georgia legislature sold approximately 35 million acres of land to private companies for a bargain price, a decision influenced by bribery. This became known as the Yazoo Land Act of 1795 or the Yazoo land-grant scandal.

Following the revelation of corruption, several lawmakers were voted out of office, and the new legislature in 1796 passed an act to revoke the previous sale, declaring that it had never legally occurred. This second law, however, was challenged as violating the Contracts Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 10), which prohibits states from passing any "law impairing the obligation of contracts".

The case of Fletcher v. Peck specifically involved Robert Fletcher, who bought a tract of land from John Peck, a speculator from Massachusetts who had acquired land through the initial sale. Fletcher sued Peck, claiming that he did not have clear title to the land when he sold it. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled that the Georgia legislature's repeal of the Yazoo Land Act was unconstitutional, upholding the sanctity of legal contracts.

The ruling in Fletcher v. Peck had significant implications for Native American land rights. While the case centred on the legal dispute between Fletcher and Peck, it also hinted that Native Americans did not hold complete title to their own lands. This idea was fully realized in the subsequent case of Johnson v. McIntosh. The Fletcher v. Peck decision, therefore, contributed to the erosion of Native American land rights and facilitated the expansion of colonial control over indigenous territories.

Frequently asked questions