## Facts

- Hodgson and Thompson sued Bowerbank and other merchants in federal circuit court in Maryland.
- The plaintiffs were alleged to be aliens and subjects of the United Kingdom.
- The defendants were alleged to reside in Maryland, but the pleadings did not allege that any defendant was a citizen of a U.S. state.
- Plaintiffs relied on § 11 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which granted circuit court jurisdiction in suits “where an alien is a party.”
- Defendants objected that, absent an allegation of state citizenship, the suit was effectively alien-versus-alien and outside Article III.
- The circuit court accepted jurisdiction; defendants sought Supreme Court review by writ of error.

## Issues

1. Whether Article III permits federal jurisdiction over a suit brought by alien plaintiffs when the defendants’ state citizenship is not alleged, making the case effectively alien-versus-alien.
2. Whether § 11 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 can be read (or applied) to confer circuit court jurisdiction beyond Article III’s limits.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held the jurisdictional objection was fatal and that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction.
- The Court stated that a statute cannot extend federal jurisdiction beyond the Constitution’s limits.
- Because the record failed to show the defendants were citizens of a state, the case did not fall within Article III’s grant for controversies between state citizens (or a state) and foreign citizens or subjects.
- The jurisdictional defect turned on pleading and proof of citizenship; the record was later amended by consent to address the defect.

## Legal Principles

- Federal judicial power under Article III does not extend to controversies solely between aliens.
- A congressional jurisdictional statute is ineffective to the extent it purports to confer jurisdiction beyond Article III.
- In alienage jurisdiction, the pleadings must allege facts showing the controversy is between a state (or its citizens) and foreign citizens or subjects; residence within a state is not a substitute for state citizenship.

## Conclusion

The Court rejected circuit court jurisdiction where alien plaintiffs sued defendants whose state citizenship was not alleged, holding that Article III requires a state or state citizen on one side of an alienage controversy and that Congress cannot authorize federal jurisdiction beyond that constitutional boundary.


Hodgson v. Bowerbank, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 303 (1809)