## Facts

- Thomas Cooper, a political writer in Pennsylvania, published a one-page broadside criticizing President John Adams and Federalist measures.
- The United States indicted Cooper under § 2 of the Sedition Act of 1798 for publishing “false, scandalous and malicious” writings against the President with intent to defame and bring him into “contempt and disrepute.”
- The prosecution focused on assertions that, under Adams’s “auspices,” the nation was burdened by a “permanent navy,” threatened with a “standing army,” and forced to borrow money at 8% “in time of peace.”
- The broadside also accused Adams of improperly “interfer[ing] … to influence the decisions of a court of justice,” tied to the Jonathan Robbins extradition to British authorities under the Jay Treaty.
- Cooper pleaded not guilty, asserting truth and fair political comment and also attacking the statute’s constitutionality.
- The case was tried to a jury in the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania before Justice Samuel Chase (on circuit) and District Judge Richard Peters; the reported opinion is primarily the jury charge.

## Issues

1. What elements must the government prove under the Sedition Act, including whether an intent to defame and bring the President into contempt must clearly appear.
2. Whether Cooper’s statements constituted “false, scandalous and malicious” writings within the meaning of the Sedition Act rather than protected political comment.
3. Whether the charge that Adams interfered with judicial decisionmaking in the Jonathan Robbins matter was materially false given the treaty-based extradition process and the President’s role in it.

## Decision

- The court instructed the jury that the Sedition Act was valid and applicable to publications meeting its statutory criteria.
- The jury was told that guilt required an intent to defame the President and to bring him into contempt and disrepute, which could be inferred from the whole tenor of the writing and the circumstances.
- The court treated key passages as materially false in statutory terms, including describing the period as “time of peace” despite hostilities with France, and depicting authorized military forces as a “standing army.”
- On the Jonathan Robbins charge, the court instructed that extradition under the Jay Treaty was an executive duty and that use of a judge to assess evidence did not give the court jurisdiction over the foreign crime; accordingly, the President could not truthfully be accused of interfering with a “court of justice” in that transaction.
- The jury returned a verdict of guilty.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Sedition Act, criminal liability for published attacks on the President required proof of a “false, scandalous and malicious” writing and a clearly apparent intent to defame and to bring the President into contempt and disrepute.
- A jury may infer intent from the overall character of the publication and the circumstances of its issuance.
- Statements presented as factual assertions about official conduct or public measures could be treated as “false” under the Act even when expressed in politically charged or rhetorical terms.
- Where extradition duties arise under a treaty, the executive may employ judicial officers to ascertain evidentiary sufficiency without converting the matter into a judicial proceeding over which a court has jurisdiction; characterizing such executive action as improper interference with a court can be deemed false.

## Conclusion

The court applied the Sedition Act to Cooper’s broadside by instructing that sharp criticism of the President was punishable when framed as materially false assertions about governmental actions and published with intent to defame and provoke public contempt, leading the jury to convict.


United States v. Cooper, 25 F. Cas. 631 (C.C.D. Pa. 1800)