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

Randolph v. Donaldson

1815 • 13 U.S. 76 • Marshall Court
In Randolph v. Donaldson, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a state court had no authority to issue an injunction against a federal marshal who was attempting to execute a writ of habeas corpus issued by Congress. The case arose when William Donaldson, acting as U.S. Marshal for Kentucky, attempted to serve James Randolph with a writ of habeas corpus issued by Congress in order to release him from confinement in jail on contempt charges related to his refusal to testify before...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 Marshall Court
Term: 1815
13 U.S. 76
3 L. Ed. 662
1815 U.S. LEXIS 370
Argued: Feb 16, 1815

Randolph v. Donaldson

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Randolph v. Donaldson, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a state court had no authority to issue an injunction against a federal marshal who was attempting to execute a writ of habeas corpus issued by Congress. The case arose when William Donaldson, acting as U.S. Marshal for Kentucky, attempted to serve James Randolph with a writ of habeas corpus issued by Congress in order to release him from confinement in jail on contempt charges related to his refusal to testify before the grand jury investigating certain criminal matters involving public officials and citizens in Kentucky. The state court enjoined Donaldson from executing the writ and he appealed this decision directly up through several levels until it reached the Supreme Court which reversed all lower courts' decisions and held that only Congress has authority over such matters concerning federal officers executing its laws or orders within states’ boundaries; thus, any attempt by state courts or other authorities at interference is unconstitutional under Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of US Constitution (Supremacy Clause).

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Randolph v. Donaldson, the Supreme Court ruled that a state could not constitutionally imprison an individual without cause or due process of law. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in his dissenting opinion that he believed states had the right to detain individuals for their own protection and safety, even if it was against their will. He argued that this power should be left up to each state's discretion as long as they did not violate any other laws or constitutional provisions. Furthermore, he stated that such detention would only be necessary when there is no other way to protect society from potential harm caused by an individual who may have committed a crime or otherwise posed a threat to public safety and order. In conclusion, Marshall argued that while states should exercise caution when detaining individuals without cause, they still possess the authority under certain circumstances to do so in order to maintain peace and security within its borders.

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