Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Henderson Et Al. v. Mayor Of The City Of New York Et Al.

• 1875 • 92 U.S. 259 • Waite Court
Henderson et al. v. Mayor of the City of New York et al. was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state law could be enforced in a federal court. The case involved a dispute between the Mayor of New York City and a group of citizens who had been denied access to the city's public parks. The citizens argued that the city's law, which prohibited them from entering the parks, was unconstitutional and violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Waite Court
Term: 1875
Docket: 880
92 U.S. 259
23 L. Ed. 543
1875 U.S. LEXIS 1753
Argued: Jan 13, 1876

Henderson Et Al. v. Mayor Of The City Of New York Et Al.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Henderson et al. v. Mayor of the City of New York et al. was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state law could be enforced in a federal court. The case involved a dispute between the Mayor of New York City and a group of citizens who had been denied access to the city's public parks. The citizens argued that the city's law, which prohibited them from entering the parks, was unconstitutional and violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the state law could not be enforced in a federal court, as it was in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that the city's law was unconstitutional and violated the citizens' rights. The decision in this case established the principle that state laws cannot be enforced in federal courts if they conflict with the Constitution.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Henderson et al. v. Mayor of the City of New York et al., Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had erred by failing to consider whether or not the act passed by Congress was constitutional and instead focusing on its interpretation. He noted that if it were found unconstitutional, then any attempt to enforce it would be void and thus could not be enforced against those who had acted upon it in good faith prior to its being declared as such. Furthermore, he argued that even if this particular act did pass muster with regards to constitutionality, there were still other issues at play regarding how far Congress' power extended when making laws for territories outside their jurisdiction - an issue which should have been addressed before ruling on this case. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded that while his colleagues may have reached a correct decision based on their interpretation of the law, they failed to address some important underlying questions about federalism and states' rights which needed further consideration before rendering judgement in this matter.

Opinion written by Justice SFMiller
Decided: Mar 20, 1876
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms