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

Mclaughlin v. United States

• 1882 • 107 U.S. 526 • Waite Court
Mclaughlin v. United States was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1883. The case involved a dispute between the United States and Mclaughlin, a citizen of the United States, over the ownership of a parcel of land in the state of California. Mclaughlin claimed that he had purchased the land from the Mexican government prior to the Mexican-American War, and thus had a valid title to the land. The United States argued that the land had been acquired by the United States as part of...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: 1882
107 U.S. 526
2 S. Ct. 862
27 L. Ed. 621
1882 U.S. LEXIS 1244
Argued: Mar 30, 1883

Mclaughlin v. United States

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Mclaughlin v. United States was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1883. The case involved a dispute between the United States and Mclaughlin, a citizen of the United States, over the ownership of a parcel of land in the state of California. Mclaughlin claimed that he had purchased the land from the Mexican government prior to the Mexican-American War, and thus had a valid title to the land. The United States argued that the land had been acquired by the United States as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the war, and thus the United States had a valid title to the land. The Supreme Court held that the United States had a valid title to the land, as the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo had been ratified by both the United States and Mexico, and thus the United States had acquired the land as part of the treaty. The Court also held that Mclaughlin's claim to the land was invalid, as he had not obtained a valid title from the Mexican government prior to the war. The Court thus ruled in favor of the United States.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in McLaughlin v. United States, arguing that Congress had no authority to pass a law criminalizing polygamy under the Constitution. He argued that while Congress could regulate marriage and divorce laws within territories, it did not have the power to make any act of bigamy or polygamy a crime because such acts were not prohibited by either state or federal constitutions. Furthermore, he argued that this was an issue for states to decide as they are better equipped than federal government when it comes to regulating morality-based issues like marriage and family life. Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that if Congress wanted to prohibit polygamous marriages then it should amend the Constitution instead of passing legislation which is beyond its powers granted by the document itself.

Opinion written by Justice SFMiller
Decided: May 07, 1883
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