The courts of the United States exercise no supervision over, or interference with the Presi dent or Congress, or the legislatures of the States. They have no veto power. They do not lie in wait for acts of Congress, to strangle them at their birth. They have no jurisdiction to pronounce any statute, either of a State or of the United States, void because irreconcilable with the Constitution, except as they are called upon to adjudge the legal rights of litigants in actual controversies. They simply pass upon the rights of parties as they come before them, and if a provision of the Constitution, or of a Federal statute, or a treaty is invoked for or against a right claimed or denied, they interpret the Constitution, the law, or the treaty, and determine the right. In this way, and in this way only if an act of Congress or of a State legislature is claimed to be invalid, or an official act is claimed to be illegal under the Constitu tion of the United States, and the decision of that question is vital and necessary to determine the rights of the parties, they perform the ordi nary* duty of interpretation, and declare the validity or invalidity of the act, and so deter mine the right between the parties before them in that particular case, and for no other purpose, and this may happen months or years after the enactment of the statute.
The Supreme Court performs no duties except judicial duties. So, when in 1794 Presi dent Washington requested the opinions of the judges on the construction of the treaty with France of 1778, they declined to comply, and when an early Congress enacted that certain pension claims should be considered and passed upon by the Federal courts, the Supreme Court upheld them in refusing to act under it, upon the ground that the power proposed to be con ferred was not judicial power within the mean ing of the Constitution. Nor will the court give a hearing to a fictitious or collusive case, con trived to raise a question as to the validity of a statute. Keeping strictly within the limit pre scribed to it of exercising only judicial power, the Federal judiciary has steadily refrained from exercising any political power, which belongs exclusively to Congress and the President. and so it has been brought into no collision with the other departments. It will not even indulge in discussions, or express opinions upon purely political questions. All attempts, for instance, to induce it to interfere either to restrain or compel the President in the exercise of his power to see that the laws are faithfully exe cuted have failed. In the case of foreign na tions, as well as in that of the sovereign States of the Union, the government acknowledged by the President, or by the President and Con gress, is always recognized by the Supreme Court. In all such questions as are purely political it holds itself bound by the acts of the other departments. So the question whether and upon what conditions aliens shall be ex cluded from the United States, belonging to the political departments of the government, the court refused to express any opinion upon the wisdom, the policy, or the justice of the meas ures enacted by Congress in the exercise of the powers confided to it by the Constitution over that subject. Thus it constantly sets the ex
ample to each of the other departments of the government of minding its own business, and keeping strictly within its assigned province. But, careful as the judges are to confine the exercise of the Federal judicial power to cases as they arise, that power does extend to "all cases of law and equity arising tinder the Con stitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made under their authority, to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public minis ters and consuls, and to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction)); and whenever any such case does come before the Supreme Court it must take cognizance of it, and it cannot shrink, and never has shrunk, from determin ing the question of private right so arising. It is under these clauses that its unique and pe culiar function of testing the validity of State laws and constitutions and of Federal statutes, and the legality of the acts of State and Federal officers arises.
The remainder of the Federal judicial power depends wholly upon the character of the parties to the controversy. It extends "to controversies to which the United States shall be a party.' This enables the Federal courts to enforce the acts of Congress, civil and criminal, against all persons within the realm; "to controversies be tween two or more States,° the purpose of which has already been indicated, as making the Supreme Court the arbitrator and peacemaker between sovereign States; to "controversies be tween a State and citizens of another State, between citizens of different States, between citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants of different States, and between a State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citi zens, or subjects.° It was wisely concluded that in all such cases justice would be safer and surer, against State or local interest, prejudice or passion, in courts representing and vested with the authority of the whole nation, than in the courts of the State of an interested Party, and that foreigners especially should have the right to have their causes heard and decided by national tribunals. These clauses, which make jurisdiction dependent upon the citizenship or character of the parties, have been a prolific source of litigation in the Federal courts, have opened to them the entire field of law and equity; have extended their adjudications to the whole body of jurisprudence, and have given to the decisions of the Supreme Court, by rea son of the weight and force of character of the cOUrt and its members, a commanding attthority with the State courts, and persuasive influence with foreign tribunals. But in this department of its functions the Supreme Court does not differ, in the scope of its powers and duties, from the courts of last resort of other nations, and its distinctive and peculiar character is not involved. The power of the court to declare State and Federal statutes, and the acts of the National and State executive officers invalid, as being in violation of the Constitution of the United States, naturally attracts the attention of foreign observers.