The United States v. Hudson & Goodwin, 7 Cranch 32 (1812). · Go Syfert
Search
The United States v. Hudson & Goodwin, 7 Cranch 32 (1812). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
Quick Summary

Federal courts lack common law criminal jurisdiction unless the legislature expressly confers such power or it is necessary to the exercise of other judicial powers.

The Court considers whether the United States Circuit Courts possess common law jurisdiction to try criminal cases, such as libel, when such power is not expressly granted by statute. The Court holds that while certain implied powers necessarily result from the nature of judicial institutions to ensure the exercise of all other powers, such as the power to punish contempt, criminal jurisdiction is not among them. Because the federal government possesses only those powers specifically ceded to it, inferior courts possess no jurisdiction beyond what the legislative power authorizes them to hold. Therefore, the Circuit Courts lack the authority to exercise common law criminal jurisdiction.

1,343 citation events (574 in the last 25 years) across 155 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Daniel'la Deering v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 115 F.4th 923 (8th Cir. 2024)
Treatment trajectory · 1900 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1900 1963 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 34 Inherent judicial powers and limitations on criminal jurisdiction79 citing cases“are necessary to the exercise of all others.”25 citing courts quote it · 31 listed here
  • Daniel'la Deering v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 115 F.4th 923 (8th Cir. 2024).published
    (Certain implied powers must necessarily result to our Courts of justice from the nature of their institution.)
  • Damien Guedes v. Atf (order in Slip Opinion Format), No. 21-5045 (D.C. Cir. May 2, 2023).published
    (The legislative authority of the Union must . . . make an act a crime [and] affix a punishment to it.)
  • Gun Owners of Am., Inc. v. Merrick B. Garland, 19 F.4th 890 (6th Cir. 2021).published
    (Bump-Stock Rule)
  • Legal Effect of Fed. Judge's Order as Hearing Officer Under Court's Emp. Dispute Resolution Plan (OLC 2010).published
    (Certain implied powers must necessarily result to our Courts of justice from the nature of their institution.)
  • United States v. Gabrion, 517 F.3d 839 (6th Cir. 2008).published 2 cites
    “the legislative authority of the union must first make an act a crime, affix a punishment to it, and declare the court that shall have jurisdiction of the offense.”
  • United States v. Demetrius Renaldo Bowers, 811 F.3d 412 (11th Cir. 2016).published 2 cites
    “the legislative authority of the union must first make an act a crime, affix a punishment to it, and declare the court that shall have jurisdiction of the offence.”
  • United States v. Salad, 779 F. Supp. 2d 503 (E.D. Va. 2011).published 2 cites
    (Certain implied powers must necessarily result to our Courts of justice from the nature of their institution,” and “cannot be dispensed with in a Court, because they are necessary to the exercise of all others)
  • United States v. Harris, 582 F.3d 512 (3d Cir. 2009).published 4 cites
    (To fine for contempt-imprison for contumacy — inforce the observance of order ... are powers which cannot be dispensed with in a Court, because they are necessary to the exercise of all others.)
  • Arey v. State, 929 A.2d 501 (Md. 2007).published
    (Certain implied powers must necessarily result to our Courts of justice from the nature of their institution)
  • Xiao Xing Ni v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 260 (2d Cir. 2007).published 4 cites
    (Certain implied powers must necessarily result to our Courts of justice from the nature of their institution.)
Show 21 more citing cases
7 Cranch at 34 cited at this page7 citing cases
  • United States v. Jeffrey Williamson, No. 24-3014 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 12, 2025).published
    Co., 370 U.S. 626 , 630–631 (1962); United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 34 (1812)).
  • J.G.G. v. Donald Trump, No. 25-5124 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 8, 2025).published
    A court has “inherent contempt authority” to punish disobedience as a power “‘necessary to the exercise of all others.’” Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 831 (1994) (quoting United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranc…
  • Strickland v. City of Las Cruces, No. 2:23-cv-00116 (D.N.M. Aug. 9, 2024).
    “It has long been understood that ‘[c]ertain implied powers must necessarily result to our Courts of justice from the nature of their institution,’ powers ‘which cannot be dispensed with in a Court, because they are necessary to the exerci…
  • Rosa v. Cook, No. 3:22-cv-00703 (D. Conn. Aug. 8, 2024).
    When they do, there is another available basis for sanctions: the Court’s “inherent power.” “It has long been understood that certain implied powers must necessarily result to our Courts of justice from the nature of their institution, pow…
  • Ninestar Corp. v. United States, 716 F. Supp. 3d 1376 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2024).published
    Federal courts may exercise “certain implied powers” that are “governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”…
  • Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024).published 2 cites
    J., concurring), it is clear that “[o]nly the people’s elected representatives in the leg- islature are authorized to ‘make an act a crime,’ ” United States v. Davis, 588 U. S. 445, 451 (2019) (quoting United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32,…
  • Strickland v. City of Las Cruces, No. 2:23-cv-00116 (D.N.M. June 10, 2024).
    Legal Standard “It has long been understood that ‘[c]ertain implied powers must necessarily result to our Courts of justice from the nature of their institution,’ powers ‘which cannot be dispensed with in a Court, because they are necessar…
At page 33 Limiting federal court jurisdiction by congressional power18 citing casesAll other Courts created by the general Government possess no jurisdiction but what is given them by the power that creates them, and can be vested with none but what the power ceded to the general Government will authorize them to confer.3 citing courts put it this way · 4 listed here
  • Make The Road New York v. Chad F. Wolf, 962 F.3d 612 (D.C. Cir. 2020).published 2 cites
    (All … Courts created by the general Government possess no jurisdiction but what is given them by the power that creates them.)
  • United States v. Bernard Moore, 954 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2020).published
    (All other Courts created by the general Government possess no jurisdiction but what is given them by the power that creates them, and can be vested with none but what the power ceded to the general Government will auth…)
  • Washington v. Ryan, 833 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2016).published 4 cites
    (All other Courts created by the general Government possess no jurisdiction but what is given them by the power that creates them, and can be vested with none but what the power ceded to the general Government will auth…)
  • First Prot. Ins. Co. v. Lewis O'Leary, No. 23-2160 (4th Cir. July 15, 2025).unpublished
    For example, the Constitution confers some jurisdiction directly upon the Supreme Court, “of which the legislative power cannot deprive it.” United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. 32, 33 (1812); U.S. Const. Art.
7 Cranch at 33 cited at this page3 citing cases
  • Mullin v. Doe, No. 25-1083 (U.S. June 25, 2026).published
    I, §8, cl. 9, they “possess no jurisdiction but what is given them by the power that creates them,” United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 33 (1812); accord, Trainmen v. Toledo, P. & W.
  • T. M. v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp., No. 25-197 (U.S. June 18, 2026).published 2 cites
    Only this Court “possesses jurisdiction derived immediately from the constitution.” United States v. Hud- son, 7 Cranch 32, 33 (1812).
  • T. M. v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp. Revisions: 6/19/26, No. 25-197 (U.S. June 18, 2026).published 2 cites
    Only this Court “possesses jurisdiction derived immediately from the constitution.” United States v. Hud- son, 7 Cranch 32, 33 (1812).
The legislative authority of the Union must first make an act a crime, affix a punishment to it, and declare the Court that shall have jurisdiction of the offence.no pin page on record · 2 citing cases listed
  • United States v. Demetrius Renaldo Bowers, 811 F.3d 412 (11th Cir. 2016).published 2 cites
    (The legislative authority of the Union must first make an act a crime, affix a punishment to it, and declare the Court that shall have jurisdiction of the offence.)
  • United States v. Gabrion, 517 F.3d 839 (6th Cir. 2008).published 2 cites
    (The legislative authority of the Union must first make an act a crime, affix a punishment to it, and declare the Court that shall have jurisdiction of the offense.)
At page 32 “long since settled in public opinion”1 citing casethe opinion's own words at *32, quoted by 1 later opinions
  • Woodard v. Illinois, No. 3:24-cv-01251 (S.D. Ill. July 16, 2024).
    Corp., 312 U.S. 45, 49-50 (1941); Jerome v. U.S., 318 U.S. 101, 104-05 (1943); U.S. v. Hudson, 11 U.S. 32, 32-34 (1812)).
Quoted next to this citation, but not language from this opinion
“certain implied powers must necessarily result to our courts of justice from the nature of their institution," and "cannot be dispensed with in a court, because they are necessary to the exercise of all others”quoted beside the cite; not in this opinion · 9 citing cases listed
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The United States
v.
Hudson and Goodwin
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 14, 1812.
Published opinion
7 Cranch 32
1812 U.S. LEXIS 365
Washi.
Cited by 752 opinions  |  Published
10 passages pin-cited by 15 cases
Pinpoint authority: #4,708 of 633,719
Citer courts: Sixth Circuit (8) · Third Circuit (6) · First Circuit (5) · Second Circuit (4) · Ninth Circuit (3) · Eleventh Circuit (2) · D. Nebraska (2)
The Court,

having taken time to consider, the following opinion was delivered (on the last day of the term, all the judges being present) by Johnson, J.

The only question which this case presents is, whether the Circuit Courts of the United States can exercise a common law jurisdiction in criminal cases. We state it thus broadly because a decision op a case of libel will apply to every case in which jurisdiction i$ not vested in those Courts by statute.

Although this question is brought up now'for the first time to be decided by this Court, we consider it as having been long since settled in public opinion.. In no other case for many years has this jurisdiction been asserted ; and the general acquiescence.of legal men shews the prevalence of opinion in favor of the negative of the proposition.

[*33] The course of reasoning which leads to this concluSion is simple, obvious, and admits of but little illustration. The powers of the general Government are made up of concessions from the several states — whatever is not expressly given to the former, the latter expressly reserve. The judicial power of the United States is a constituent part of those concessions, — that power is to he exercised by Courts organized for the purpose, and brought into existence by an effort of the legislative power of the' Union. Of all the Courts which the United States may, under their general powers, constitute, one only, the Supreme Court,, possesses jurisdiction derived immediately from the constitution, and of which the legislative power cannot deprive it. All other Courts created by the general Government possess no.jurisdiction but what is given them by the power that creates them, and can be vested with none but what the power ceded to the general Government will authorize them to confer.

It is not necessary to inquire whether the general Government, in any and wliat extent, possesses the flower of conferring on its Courts a. jurisdiction in cases similar to the present; it is enough that such jurisdiction has not been conferred by any legislative act, if it does not result to those Courts as a consequence of their creation.

And such is the opinion of the majority of this Court: For, the power which congress possess to create Courts of inferior jurisdiction, necessarily implies the power to limit the jurisdiction of those Courts to particular, objects; and when a Court is created, and its operations confined to certain specific objects, with what propriety can it assume to itself a jurisdiction — much more extended: — in its nature very indefinite — applicable to a great variety of subjects — varying in every state in the Union — and with regard to which there exists no definite criterion of distribution between the district and Circuit Courts of the same district i

The only ground on which it has ever been contended that this jurisdiction could be maintained is, that, upon the formation of any political body, an implied pow • er to preserve its own existence and promote the end and'object of its creation, necessarily results to it- But,[*34] without examining how far this consideration is appli cable to the peculiar character of our constitution, it may be remarked that it is a principle by no means pecuijar ■ f0 tbe common law. It is coeval, probably, With the first formation of a limited Government 5 belongs to a system of universal law, and may as well support the assumption of many other powers as those more peculiarly acknowledged by the common law of England.

Rut if admitted as applicable to the state of things in this country, the consequence would not result from it which is here contended for. If. it may communicate certain implied powers to the general Government, it would not follow that the Courts of that Government are vested with jurisdiction over any particular act done by an individual in supposed violation of tjié peace and dignity of the sovereign power. The legislative authority of the Union must first make an act a crime, affix a punishment .tbit, and declare the Court that shall have jurisdiction of tho offence.

Certain implied powers must necessarily result to sur Courts of justice froth the nature of their institution. But jurisdiction of crimes against the state is not'among those powers. To fine for contempt — imprison for contumacy — in force the observance of order, &c. are powers' which cannot be dispensed with in a Court, because they are necessary to tlie exercise of all others : and so far our Góurts no doubt possess powers not immediately derived from statute; but all exercise of criminal jurisdiction in common law cases we are of opinion is riot within their implied powers.