Prigg v. Pennsylvania Case Brief

Summary of Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842)

Penn. statute barred self-help in the return of slaves. Prigg is a slave owner who was convicted in a criminal case under Penn law for trying to get his fugitive slave back. Prigg appeals conviction based on theory that Penn law in unconstitutional [Constitution, Article IV § 2[3] allows a slave owner to reclaim a fugitive slave from a free state].

1. Held: Federal law trumps state law

2. This clause reflects the compromise part of the constitution

3. Justice Story: This clause is self-executing, meaning no additional legislation is needed by Congress. Thus, since clause is self-executing, one can exercise self-help

a. Clause is very clear (like the prez must be 35 years old)

b. Majority’s approach reflects that this clause was a compromise

4. Justice Tawny (concurrence): Agrees w/ result, but believes that states should be able to legislate. Sees this as a compromise b/t states.

5. Justice McLean (dissent): Fugitive Slave Act does not address self-help. Process set up by Fed Govt in which owner was to go to the magistrate or federal judge ? need a hearing. Thus, self-help not allowed

jfdghjhthit45


Copyright © 2001-2012 4LawSchool.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy HotChalk Partner