## Facts

- Congress authorized the City of Washington, D.C. to conduct lotteries for local purposes under an 1812 act.
- Virginia enacted an anti-lottery statute prohibiting the sale of lottery tickets within the Commonwealth except for lotteries authorized by Virginia law.
- Philip and Mendes Cohen sold portions of “National Lottery” tickets in Norfolk, Virginia.
- A Virginia grand jury charged the Cohens with unlawful lottery ticket sales; the borough court convicted them and imposed a $100 fine.
- The Cohens argued their conduct was protected by federal law and that Virginia’s statute could not constitutionally be applied to them.
- The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court by writ of error under § 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789; Virginia sought dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction under Article III and § 25 of the Judiciary Act to review a state-court criminal judgment when a federal right is claimed, even though a state is a party and the defendants are its citizens.
2. Whether the 1812 federal lottery authorization for Washington, D.C. conferred a federal right to sell lottery tickets in Virginia, preempting Virginia’s anti-lottery law as applied.

## Decision

- The Court held it had appellate jurisdiction to review state-court judgments, including criminal judgments, when a federal question is presented and the statutory conditions of § 25 are met.
- The Court rejected the argument that Supreme Court review is barred merely because a state is a party or because the proceeding is criminal.
- On the merits, the Court affirmed the conviction, holding the 1812 act did not authorize ticket sales in Virginia contrary to Virginia law.
- The $100 fine imposed by the Virginia court was sustained.

## Legal Principles

- Article III’s grant of judicial power over “all cases arising under” federal law turns on the presence of a federal question, not the identity of the parties.
- Section 25 of the Judiciary Act validly authorizes Supreme Court review of final state-court judgments when a federal right is denied or when state law is upheld against a federal challenge.
- The Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction may extend to cases in which a state is a party; the Constitution’s original-jurisdiction clause does not eliminate appellate review in such cases.
- Supreme Court appellate review is not limited to civil matters; it may reach state criminal judgments when federal rights are specially claimed and rejected.
- State laws conflicting with the Constitution or federal statutes are void, but federal preemption requires a federal enactment that actually confers the asserted right or clearly displaces state law.
- Federal legislation for the District of Columbia may be “law of the United States,” yet may remain territorially local absent clear congressional intent to regulate conduct within the states.

## Conclusion

The Court confirmed that it may review state criminal judgments raising federal questions to ensure uniform interpretation of federal law, but it upheld Virginia’s conviction because the federal lottery authorization for Washington, D.C. did not grant a right to sell lottery tickets in Virginia or displace Virginia’s prohibition.


Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821)