Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Federal law is superior to State law, and overturned the conviction of Edward Prigg as a result.

The legal environment of the time

Federal Law

In June 1788, the US Constitution came into force, having been ratified by nine states (q.v. History of the United States Constitution). Article IV, Section 2, of the Constiution contained two statements about the legality of fleeing justice, creditors, owners, or other agencies, across state borders:

• A person charged in any state with treason, felony or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.
• No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

Although the second clause above was superceded by the 13th Amendment, that amendment only came into force 24 years later, on December 6th 1865.

On February 12th 1793, the U.S. Congress passed a law requiring the return of escaped slaves to their previous owners.

State law in Pennsylvania

On March 29th 1788, the State of Pennsylvania passed an amendment to one of its laws (An act for the gradual abolition of slavery, originally enacted March 1st 1780); this amendment stated that, No negro or mulatto slave ...shall be removed out of this state, with the design and intention that the place of abode or residence of such slave or servant shall be thereby altered or changed.

On March 25th 1826, the State of Pennsylvania passed a further law, which stated in part: If any person or persons shall, from and after the passing of this act, by force and violence, take and carry away, or cause to be taken or carried away, and shall, by fraud or false pretence, seduce, or cause to be seduced, or shall attempt so to take, carry away or seduce, any negro or mulatto, from any part or parts of this commonwealth, to any other place or places whatsoever, out of this commonwealth, with a design and intention of selling and disposing of, or of causing to be sold, or of keeping and detaining, or of causing to be kept and detained, such negro or mulatto, as a slave or servant for life, or for any term whatsoever, every such person or persons, his or their aiders or abettors, shall on conviction thereof, in any court of this commonwealth having competent jurisdiction, be deemed guilty of a felony.

Case background

During the year of 1832, a black woman called Margaret Morgan escaped to Pennsylvania from Maryland, where she had been a slave to a woman named Margaret Ashmore.

On April 1st 1837, Edward Prigg led an assault and abduction on a black woman, Margaret Morgan, in York County, Pennsylvania. They took Morgan to Maryland, intending to sell her as a slave. The four men involved in the abduction were arraigned under the 1826 act. Prigg pleaded not guilty, and argued that he had been duly appointed by Margaret Ashmore to arrest and return Morgan to her owner in Maryland. However, in a ruling on May 22nd 1839, the Court of Quarter Sessions of York County convicted him.

Prigg appealed to the US Supreme Court on the grounds that the Pennsylvania law arrogated the State powers over and above those allowed by the US Constitution.

The Supreme Court's view

Prigg's argument

Prigg and his lawyer argued that the 1788 and 1826 Pennsylvania laws were unconstitutional:

• Firstly, because of the injuction in Article IV of the US Constitution that No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due..

• Secondly, because, the exercise of Federal legislation, such as that undertaken by Congress in passing the act of the February 12th 1793, supercedes any State law.

As a consequence, they argued, the 1788 Pennsylvania law, in all its provisions applicable to this case, should be voided.

External links

• Full text of the decision courtesy of Findlaw.com