Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1 — Effect Of State Admission On Pending Judicial Proceedings

prev | next

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

In its acts of admission, Congress may explicitly provide for the transfer and disposition of civil and criminal cases pending in the territorial courts following statehood, consistently with the Constitution.[1](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/section-3/clause-1/effect-of-state-admission-on-pending-judicial-proceedings#fn1art4 " See, e.g., 36 Stat. 557, 565–65 (1910) (treatment of cases pending in New Mexican territorial courts after state admission). ") Territorial courts are generally “legislative courts” not subject to Article III.[2](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/section-3/clause-1/effect-of-state-admission-on-pending-judicial-proceedings#fn2art4 " See . The federal courts of the District of Columbia and territory of Puerto Rico, however, are Article III courts. See . ") Because the federal government has plenary authority in a territory, there is no distinction between federal and state jurisdiction while the territory exists.[3](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/section-3/clause-1/effect-of-state-admission-on-pending-judicial-proceedings#fn3art4 " Benner v. Porter, 50 U.S. 235, 242 (1850); see generally ; . ")

After statehood, cases pending in the territorial courts of exclusive federal cognizance are generally transferred to the federal court having jurisdiction over the area.[4](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/section-3/clause-1/effect-of-state-admission-on-pending-judicial-proceedings#fn4art4 " Baker v. Morton, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 150, 153 (1871). ") Cases not cognizable in the federal courts are transferred to the tribunals of the new state, and those over which federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction may be transferred either to the state or federal courts by the party possessing the option under existing law.[5](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/section-3/clause-1/effect-of-state-admission-on-pending-judicial-proceedings#fn5art4 " Id. ") When a formerly territorial case is transferred to a state court under the operation of the enabling act and the state constitution, the appellate procedure is governed by the state law.[6](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/section-3/clause-1/effect-of-state-admission-on-pending-judicial-proceedings#fn6art4 " John v. Paullin, 231 U.S. 583 (1913). ")

Without action from Congress, the Supreme Court may not directly review the decision of a territorial court of appeals after that court has ceased to exist following statehood.[7](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/section-3/clause-1/effect-of-state-admission-on-pending-judicial-proceedings#fn7art4 " Hunt v. Palao, 45 U.S. (4 How.) 589 (1846). ") But Congress may by law provide for Supreme Court appellate review of such cases or for their transfer to an appropriate federal court.[8](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/section-3/clause-1/effect-of-state-admission-on-pending-judicial-proceedings#fn8art4 " Benner, 50 U.S. (9 How.) at 245–46. ") When Congress neglected to make provision for disposition of certain pending cases in an enabling act for the admission of a state, a subsequent act addressing the omission was held valid.[9](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/section-3/clause-1/effect-of-state-admission-on-pending-judicial-proceedings#fn9art4 " Freeborn v. Smith, 69 U.S. (2 Wall.) 160 (1865). ")

Footnotes

1

See, e.g., 36 Stat. 557 , 565–65 (1910) (treatment of cases pending in New Mexican territorial courts after state admission).

2

See . The federal courts of the District of Columbia and territory of Puerto Rico, however, are Article III courts. See .

3

Benner v. Porter, 50 U.S. 235 , 242 (1850); see generally ; .

4

Baker v. Morton, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 150 , 153 (1871).

5

Id.

6

John v. Paullin, 231 U.S. 583 (1913) .

7

Hunt v. Palao, 45 U.S. (4 How.) 589 (1846) .

8

Benner, 50 U.S. (9 How.) at 245–46.

9

Freeborn v. Smith, 69 U.S. (2 Wall.) 160 (1865) .