Overview

• Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
• Year: 1780
• Chief Justice: David Brearley
• Citation: No official written opinion survives
• Significance: Often considered the first American case to assert judicial review — the principle that a court may invalidate a law that violates a constitution.

Background

During the Revolutionary War, New Jersey passed the Seizure Act of 1778, which authorized the confiscation of goods traded with the British enemy. The law allowed such cases to be tried by a six-person jury before a justice of the peace, rather than the traditional twelve.

In 1779, Walton (the informant) seized goods belonging to Holmes and Ketcham, accusing them of illegal trade with the enemy. A six-member jury found against Holmes and Ketcham, who then appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court, claiming that the Seizure Act violated the New Jersey Constitution of 1776.

Constitutional Issue

• Did the New Jersey Legislature have the authority to create a six-member jury for criminal or quasi-criminal trials?
• Was such a statute constitutional under New Jersey’s 1776 Constitution, which implicitly protected the traditional twelve-member jury system?

The Court’s Decision

Although the official opinion was not preserved, contemporary reports indicate that:

• Chief Justice David Brearley and the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the portion of the Seizure Act allowing six-member juries was unconstitutional.
• The Court reasoned that the state constitution guaranteed trial by jury as understood in common law — meaning twelve jurors, not six.
• As a result, the verdict rendered by the six-person jury was invalid, and the statute itself could not be enforced in that form.

Aftermath

• The New Jersey Legislature quickly amended the law (December 25, 1779), explicitly requiring twelve-person juries in future cases.
• The decision caused political controversy because it appeared that the judiciary had overruled an act of the legislature.
• Nonetheless, it established a crucial precedent that courts could declare statutes void if inconsistent with a constitution.

Historical Significance

• Widely regarded as the first recorded instance of judicial review in America.
• Preceded Marbury v. Madison (1803) by more than two decades.
• Demonstrated the growing belief that constitutions are higher law and legislative acts must conform to them.
• Helped shape the early American understanding of separation of powers and constitutional supremacy at the state level.

Key Takeaways

• Principle affirmed: Laws contrary to the constitution are void.
• Influence: Provided a foundation for later cases asserting judicial review.
• Legacy of Judge Brearley: His reasoning in Holmes v. Walton foreshadowed the federal judiciary’s role in constitutional interpretation.