Abelman v. Booth 283district court in Wisconsin and argued that his conviction
and imprisonment were illegal because the Fugitive Slave
Law was unconstitutional. He also argued that the federal
district court had no jurisdiction over him because the pro-
ceedings and sentence were legal nullities.
Th e district court ordered both the U.S. marshal and
the sheriff to produce Booth in court. Th e U.S. marshal re-
sponded that he was unable to do so because Booth was in
the custody of the sheriff. Th e sheriff produced Booth at the
Wisconsin Supreme Court, which again decided Booth’s
imprisonment was illegal and ordered Booth’s discharge.
Th e U.S. attorney general fi led a petition with the U.S.
Supreme Court and argued that the state court had no ju-
risdiction and that the U.S. Supreme Court should accept
the case to correct the error. Th e U.S. Supreme Court heard
both cases together because they involved diff erent parts of
the same off ense and the same principles of law. Th e U.S.
attorney general argued both cases for the government. No
counsel appeared for Booth, but the Supreme Court had
access to the documents from the fi rst case as well as the
Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions, arguments, and bases
for its decisions.
In 1859 the U.S. Supreme Court reversed both decisions
of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and upheld the constitu-
tionality of the Fugitive Slave Act. In delivering the opinion
of the Court, Chief Justice Roger Taney articulated the Su-
preme Court’s role in appellate jurisdiction and the role of
state courts. Th e Supreme Court’s decision reinforced that
principle that the Constitution is the supreme law of the
land and that there is a division of authority between state
and federal courts. Th e Court stressed the importance of
uniformity in the interpretation of laws throughout the
states and held the Wisconsin state court’s actions were
without authority. Th e Court explained that a state court’s
sovereignty is limited and restricted by the U.S. Constitu-
tion and that although both state and federal governments
have powers within a state, both must act separately and in-
dependently within their sphere because the sphere of U.S.
government action should be supreme without any inter-
ruption by state offi cials.
Chief Justice Taney, who had previously suff ered se-
vere criticism for his decision in the Dred Scott v. Sandford
case in 1857, argued that the supremacy of the federal gov-
ernment had not been forced on the states. Instead, Taney
maintained, the framers of the Constitution and the people
of the United States deliberately conferred the powers onlegal principles, to render a decision in Abelman v. Booth
in 1859. Th is case revealed the confl ict between North and
South over the Fugitive Slave Act and caused tremendous
turmoil when the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that state
courts did not have the power to review or interfere with
federal laws.
Th e case commenced in 1854, when abolitionist Sher-
man Booth was charged before a federal commissioner in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, with aiding and abetting the escape
of a fugitive slave from a U.S. deputy marshal, Stephen
Abelman. Abelman had the slave in custody under a war-
rant issued by a U.S. district court judge pursuant to the
Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, but Booth incited a riot to help
the enslaved man escape, an action that was deemed a clear
violation of the act’s stipulation that required all Americans
to cooperate in apprehending fugitives.
Following the incident, Booth was held in jail until he
was to appear in the U.S. district court. Before his appear-
ance date, Booth asked a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice
for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that he was being re-
strained of his liberty by the U.S. marshal. Booth argued
to the Wisconsin Supreme Court justice that his imprison-
ment was illegal because the 1850 Act was unconstitutional
and void and that the warrant for his arrest was defective
because the warrant had not described the off ense created
by the act even had the act been valid. Th e state court jus-
tice issued the writ and directed the U.S. marshal to bring
Booth before the state’s highest court for a hearing. Aft er
the hearing, the justice decided Booth’s detention was il-
legal and ordered Abelman to discharge him and set Booth
free. Abelman complied with the state court’s order but
then applied to the Wisconsin Supreme Court for a writ of
certiorari and argued that Booth’s release had been errone-
ous and unlawful and that the state court’s decision should
be reversed. Th e Wisconsin State Supreme Court affi rmed
its decision to set Booth free.
Th e second case was initiated when Abelman fi led a
writ of error with the U.S. Supreme Court and asked that
court to reverse the Wisconsin state court. Aft er the writ
had been fi led, but before the U.S. Supreme Court heard
the case, a federal court grand jury in Wisconsin indicted
Booth for the off ense for which the Wisconsin Supreme
Court had discharged him. Booth pled not guilty but was
convicted by a jury, sentenced to one-month imprison-
ment, and fi ned $1,000. Aft er his sentencing, Booth fi led a
petition in both the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the U.S.