## Facts

- Barzillai Hudson and George Goodwin were publishers of a Connecticut newspaper.
- They published an article criticizing the President and Congress, alleging that federal officials had secretly voted money to benefit Napoleon to secure a treaty with Spain.
- Federal prosecutors sought to treat the publication as a criminal libel against the national government.
- The defendants were indicted in the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut on a theory of common-law criminal libel, without relying on any federal statute defining the offense or punishment.
- The defendants filed a general demurrer challenging the federal court’s authority to proceed on a common-law crime theory.
- The circuit judges divided on whether the federal circuit court possessed common-law criminal jurisdiction, and the question was certified to the Supreme Court for resolution.

## Issues

1. Whether federal circuit courts may exercise common-law jurisdiction in criminal cases, including criminal libel against the national government.
2. Whether a federal criminal prosecution may proceed when Congress has not, by statute, defined the charged offense, provided a punishment, and assigned jurisdiction to a federal court.
3. Whether any “inherent” judicial authority of federal courts can supply general criminal jurisdiction absent legislative authorization.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that federal circuit courts do not have common-law criminal jurisdiction.
- The Court ruled that a federal criminal prosecution cannot be maintained unless Congress has made the conduct a crime, fixed a punishment, and specified the court with jurisdiction.
- The indictment for common-law criminal libel therefore could not be sustained, ending the prosecution.
- The Court recognized that federal courts possess limited implied powers necessary to function (such as contempt), but those powers do not include general authority to punish common-law crimes.

## Legal Principles

- Federal criminal jurisdiction in lower federal courts exists only when conferred by Congress through statute.
- There is no general federal common law of crimes enforceable in federal circuit (and other inferior) courts.
- For a valid federal criminal prosecution, Congress must (1) define the act as a crime, (2) attach a punishment, and (3) designate the court that may hear the case.
- The federal government is one of enumerated and delegated powers; inferior federal courts have no jurisdiction beyond what the creating authority grants within constitutional limits.
- Federal courts have narrow implied powers indispensable to judicial administration (e.g., contempt and enforcement of orders), but those powers do not extend to prosecuting “crimes against the state” at common law.

## Conclusion

The Court rejected the notion that lower federal courts can punish common-law crimes and held that federal criminal liability and jurisdiction depend on congressional enactment defining the offense, setting a penalty, and granting jurisdiction, with only limited inherent judicial powers preserved for court operation.


United States v. Hudson & Goodwin, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32 (1812)