The first federal court, the Court of Appeals in Cases of Capture (hereinafter “CACC”) heard appeals from state court cases seeking maritime prizes. These prizes were monetary awards primarily related to the capture of British ships and cargo during the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783). Although Article IX of the Articles of Confederation (drafted in 1777 and ratified in 1781) contemplated the creation of such a court, the Second Continental Congress—the former colonies’ provisional revolutionary government—founded the CACC in 1780, before the Articles had been ratified by all thirteen states.
The Revolutionary War gave rise to a rash of maritime captures, which the Second Continental Congress encouraged through a series of resolutions in 1775 and 1776. Under one such resolution, Congress called on state legislatures to create their own tribunals for adjudicating prize cases. Congress itself was then to hear appeals from these courts. It initially did so through ad hoc committees but eventually created a standing committee to hear appeals. However, many states resisted the appeals process, and Congress found itself unable to enforce many of its rulings. In a high-profile case in which Congress reversed a Pennsylvania court’s allocation of prize money for the capture of the British sloop Active, for instance, the Pennsylvania courts flatly refused to follow Congress’ decision on remand. Congress was forced to accept this act of defiance rather than precipitate a crisis.
The creation of the CACC was designed to remedy Congress’ lack of enforcement power over state courts and to assuage related concerns by foreign governments who were denied leave to appeal to Congress from adverse state judgments. While Congress voted to create the court, however, language that would have required state courts to follow the CACC’s orders and an attempted resolution requesting state legislatures to pass laws doing the same both failed to garner the requisite votes. As a result, critics alleged that the CACC suffered from many of the same flaws as the Congressional appeals system.
The CACC’s organic legislation required it to rule according to the law of nations and could not conduct jury proceedings. Congress periodically amended the CACC’s organic legislation to permit appeals in specific cases, to change its authorized meeting places (its first session was held in Philadelphia, but the court subsequently met in several other cities on or near the east coast), and to allow it to retry cases de novo when necessary to further the interests of justice.
The CACC consisted of three congressionally appointed judges, two of whom constituted a quorum. The court’s first three judges were William Paca, Titus Hosmer, and Cyrus Griffin. Congress had initially approved George Wythe, but he declined his nomination, and his seat was filled by Judge Griffin. Judge Hosmer died a few months after assuming office and was eventually replaced by George Read. Judge Paca resigned in 1782 and was replaced by John Lowell. Judges Paca, Griffin, and Lowell were all later appointed U.S. district judges.
The CACC heard several dozen appeals from state maritime courts, hearing its final case in 1787. In 1789, it was superseded by Article III of the Constitution, which created the Supreme Court of the United States. Article III anticipated that the Supreme Court could hear maritime appeals from either state or federal courts subject to congressional legislation. In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress gave U.S. district and circuit courts jurisdiction over the maritime cases that had been handled by state courts under the system that included the CACC. The Supreme Court, in turn, had appellate jurisdiction over those cases.
Several CACC cases generated major federal cases in the aftermath of the court’s dissolution. In Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators (1795), for example, the Supreme Court upheld Congress’ power to create the CACC even though Congress had done so before the Articles’ ratification. The Active litigation eventually concluded with the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in United States v. Peters (1809), which held that state legislatures could not nullify federal courts’ judgements. Historians and legal scholars have generally looked to the CACC as an important precursor to the Article III federal courts, but one that demonstrated many of the limitations of the federal government’s authority prior to the ratification of the Constitution.
Further Reading:
Goebel, Julius, Jr., The Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise: History of the Supreme Court of the United States, vol. I: Antecedents and Beginnings to 1801. New York: MacMillan, 1971.
Jameson, J. Franklin, “The Predecessor of the Supreme Court,” in Jameson, J Franklin, ed. Essays in the Constitutional History of the United States in the Formative Period, 1775-1789. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1889.
Marcus, Maeva. Documentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789-1800, vol. 6. New York: Columbia University Press, 1998.
Mas, Deirdre and Paul MacMahon. “The Revolutionary Prize Cases and the Origins of Diversity Jurisdiction,” Buffalo Law Review, 63, no. 3 (May 2015): 477-547.