Editing Fletcher v. Peck

{{Use American English|date=December 2022}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=December 2022}}
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
| Litigants = Fletcher v. Peck
| ArgueDate = February 15
| ArgueYear = 1810
| DecideDate = March 16
| DecideYear = 1810
| FullName = Robert Fletcher v. John Peck
| USVol = 10
| USPage = 87
| ParallelCitations = 6 [[William Cranch|Cranch]] 87; 3 [[L. Ed.]] 162; 1810 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 322;
| Prior = Demurrer overruled, [[United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts|D. Mass]]
| Subsequent = None
| Holding = The Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibited Georgia from voiding contracts for the transfer of land, even though they were secured through illegal bribery. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts affirmed.
| Majority = Marshall
| JoinMajority = Cushing, Chase, Washington, Livingston, Todd
| Concurrence/Dissent = Johnson
| LawsApplied = [[Contract Clause|U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 1]]
}}
'''''Fletcher v. Peck''''', 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87 (1810), was a landmark [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] decision in which the Supreme Court first ruled a state law unconstitutional. The decision created a growing precedent for the sanctity of legal contracts and hinted that Native Americans did not hold complete title to their own lands (an idea fully realized in ''[[Johnson v. McIntosh]]'').<ref> {{cite encyclopedia |last=Barker |first=Joanne |author-link= |editor-last=Koshy |editor-first=Susan |encyclopedia=Colonial Racial Capitalism |title=The Corporation and the Tribe |trans-title= |url= |access-date= |language=English |edition= |year=2022 |publisher=Duke University Press |series= |volume= |location= |id= |isbn= |issn= |oclc= |doi= |page=41-45 |quote= }} </ref>

==Background==
Following the [[Treaty of Paris (1783)|Treaty of Paris]] ending the [[American Revolution]], [[Georgia (U.S.)|Georgia]] claimed possession of the [[Yazoo lands]], a {{cvt|54000|sqmi|km2|abbr=out}} region of the [[Indian Reserve (1763)|Indian Reserve]], west of its own territory. The land later became the northern part of the states of [[Alabama]] and [[Mississippi]].<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |title=Yazoo Land Fraud |url=https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/yazoo-land-fraud/ |access-date=2024-05-08 |website=New Georgia Encyclopedia |language=en-US}}</ref>

In 1795, the [[Georgia legislature]] divided the area into four tracts. The state then sold the tracts to four separate land development companies for $500,000, about $0.014 per acre, a bargain even at 1790 prices. The Georgia legislature overwhelmingly approved this land grant, known as the Yazoo Land Act of 1795.<ref name=":0" /> However, it was later revealed that the Yazoo Land Act had been approved in return for [[Bribery|bribes]] in a scandal known as the [[Yazoo land scandal|Yazoo Land Scandal]].<ref>Lamplugh, George B. (3015). Yazoo Land Fraud. New Georgia Encyclopedia. Retrieved 13 May 2016</ref> The voters rejected most of the incumbents in the next [[election]]; the new legislature, reacting to the public outcry, repealed the law and voided the transactions made under it.

Robert Fletcher bought a tract of land from Peck after the 1795 act was repealed. Fletcher, in 1803, brought a suit against Peck, claiming that Peck had not had clear title to the land when he sold it.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Fletcher v. Peck |url=https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/government-politics/fletcher-v-peck-1810/ |access-date=2024-05-08 |website=New Georgia Encyclopedia |language=en-US}}</ref>

There was collusion between the two. Both would have their land secured if the Supreme Court decided that Native Americans did not hold original title. Fletcher set out to win the case.<ref>{{cite book |first=Stuart |last=Banner |title=How the Indians Lost Their Land: Law and Power on the Frontier |location=Cambridge |publisher=Harvard |year=2005 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/howindianslostth00bann_0/page/171 171–172] |isbn=0-674-01871-0 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/howindianslostth00bann_0/page/171 }}</ref>

==Court ruling==
The Supreme Court unanimously (with a separate concurring opinion written by [[William Johnson (judge)|William Johnson]]) ruled that the legislature's repeal of the law was unconstitutional. [[John Marshall]] wrote that the sale was a binding [[contract]], which under Article I, Section 10, Clause I (the [[Contract Clause]]) of the [[US Constitution|Constitution]], cannot be invalidated even if it is illegally secured.<ref>https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/10us87 {{Bare URL inline|date=August 2024}}</ref>

The ruling lent further protection to [[property rights]] against popular pressure and is the earliest case of the Court asserting its right to invalidate state laws which are in conflict with or are otherwise contrary to the Constitution. A later Chief Justice, [[William H. Rehnquist]], wrote that ''Fletcher v. Peck'' "represented an attempt by Chief Justice Marshall to extend the protection of the contract clause to infant business".<ref>[[William H. Rehnquist|Rehnquist, William]]. [https://web.archive.org/web/20080921203658/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh99-1067/324-325.pdf A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases], Memo to Justice [[Robert H. Jackson]]</ref>

==See also==
*[[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 10]]
*[[Yazoo land scandal]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==Further reading==
*{{cite book |title=The Great Yazoo Lands Sale: The Case of Fletcher v. Peck |first=Charles F. |last=Hobson |year=2016 |publisher=University Press of Kansas |isbn=978-0700623303 }}
*{{cite book |title=Yazoo: Law and Politics in the New Republic: The Case of Fletcher v. Peck |first=C. Peter |last=Magrath |year=1966 |publisher=W. W. Norton |isbn=0-608-18419-5 }}
*{{cite book |title=John Marshall: Definer Of A Nation |first=Jean Edward |last=Smith |authorlink=Jean Edward Smith |year=1996 |publisher=Henry Holt & Company }}

==External links==
*{{caselaw source
 | case=''Fletcher v. Peck'', {{ussc|10|87|1810|Cranch|6|el=no}}
 | cornell =https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/10/87
 | courtlistener =https://openjurist.org/10/us/87
 | googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5141123411769984021
 | justia=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/10/87/
 | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep010/usrep010087/usrep010087.pdf
 | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/10us87
 | openjurist =https://openjurist.org/10/us/87
 | other_source1=University of Tulsa
 | other_url1=http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/USSCT_Cases/FLETCHER_V_PECK_1810.HTM
}}
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20040514031819/http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/cases/fletcher.htm Famous Cases]
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20090201173157/http://www.lawnix.com/cases/fletcher-peck.html Case Brief for ''Fletcher v. Peck'' at Lawnix.com]

{{USArticleI}}

[[Category:1810 in United States case law]]
[[Category:United States Constitution Article One case law]]
[[Category:Aboriginal title case law in the United States]]
[[Category:Contract Clause case law]]
[[Category:United States federalism case law]]
[[Category:Legal history of Georgia (U.S. state)]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Marshall Court]]
[[Category:Native American history of Georgia (U.S. state)]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]