## Facts

- Rhode Island operated under a 1663 colonial charter that tightly limited suffrage and lacked a formal amendment process.
- In 1841–1842, reformers convened a “People’s Convention,” drafted a new constitution, claimed popular ratification, and organized a rival “People’s” government (the Dorr Rebellion).
- The existing charter government refused to recognize the rival regime, enacted strict measures, and declared martial law to suppress the uprising.
- Martin Luther, associated with the insurgent movement, alleged that Luther M. Borden and other officials, acting under the charter government’s authority during martial law, entered and searched Luther’s home and caused damage.
- Luther sued Borden for trespass, asserting the charter government was illegitimate and had been superseded by the People’s Constitution, making the search unauthorized.
- Rhode Island courts upheld the charter government’s legitimacy and rejected Luther’s claim; the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court on writ of error.

## Issues

1. Whether federal courts may determine, under the Guarantee Clause, which of two competing Rhode Island governments was the legitimate “republican” state government.
2. Whether the asserted illegitimacy of the charter government could invalidate martial law measures and acts taken under them, including Borden’s entry into Luther’s home.
3. Whether questions about popular ratification of a proposed state constitution are capable of judicial resolution in a trespass action.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Borden in an opinion by Chief Justice Taney.
- The Court held that deciding which competing state government is legitimate under the Guarantee Clause is a political question committed to Congress and the President, not the judiciary.
- Because the political branches recognized the charter government, and state courts treated it as lawful, federal courts were bound to accept that recognition.
- Treating the charter government as the lawful government foreclosed Luther’s theory that Borden’s actions were unauthorized because a rival government was the true government.
- Justice Woodbury dissented, arguing for greater judicial capacity to examine the legality of actions taken under martial law.

## Legal Principles

- Guarantee Clause disputes over whether a state government is “republican” and lawfully established are nonjusticiable political questions for the federal political branches.
- Federal courts must accept the political branches’ recognition of a state government when rival governments claim authority.
- Claims turning on whether a constitution was adopted by a qualifying popular majority are not suited to adjudication in ordinary judicial proceedings.
- When a government is treated as the lawful state authority, actions taken by its officers under that authority cannot be invalidated in court by asserting that a competing government was the true sovereign.

## Conclusion

The Court refused to decide which Rhode Island regime was the lawful government, holding that Guarantee Clause legitimacy determinations belong to Congress and the President; accordingly, the charter government’s actions, including measures taken during martial law and the officers’ conduct, could not be attacked on the theory that the rival “People’s” government was the true republican government.


Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 1 (1849)