Supreme Court of the United StatesDecided January 23, 1911

Muskrat v. United States
Argued November 30, 1910

Full case name:	''David Muskrat and J. Henry Dick v. United States
Citations:	219 U.S. 346; 31 S. Ct. 250; 55 L. Ed. 246; 1911 U.S. LEXIS 1641
Prior history:	Dismissed, 44 Ct. Cl. 137 (1909)
Subsequent history:	none

Holding Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the Court to actual controversies between adverse parties; there is no controversy or adversity where an interested party colludes with a disinterested party to bring the suit solely for the purpose of determining the constitutionality of a particular act of Congress. Court of Claims affirmed. Court membership

Chief Justice Edward Douglass White

Associate Justices John Marshall Harlan, Joseph McKenna, Oliver Wendell Holmes, William Rufus Day, Horace H. Lurton, Charles Evans Hughes, Willis Van Devanter, Joseph R. Lamar

Case opinions

Majority by: Day

Joined by: unanimous court

Laws applied U.S. Const. Art. III Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911), is a case that appears in virtually every Constitutional law casebook published, because of its delineation of the authority of United States federal courts to hear certain kinds of cases.

Facts

---

In this case, Congress passed a statute permitting certain Native Americans to bring suits against the United States to determine the constitutionality of a law allocating tribal lands, and providing that Counsel for both sides were to be paid from the United States Treasury. Several cases were brought pursuant to this statute, including suits brought by David Muskrat and J. Henry Dick opposing the partition of Indian lands, and by another pair, William Brown and Levi B. Gritts, opposing a prohibition against the sale of certain Indian lands.

Result

---

The United States Supreme Court refused to allow the case to be heard, maintaining that, though the United States was named as a defendant, the case in question was not an actual controversy: rather, the statute was merely devised to test the constitutionality of a certain type of legislation, and the Court's ruling would be nothing more than an advisory opinion; therefore, it dismissed the suit for failing to present a "case or controversy", as required by Article III of the United States Constitution.

Later developments

---

Although this decision remains good law, its importance has been diminished by the Supreme Court's approval of the declaratory judgment act, which permits a party to seek a declaration of rights against another party, even where no affirmative relief (e.g. damages or an injunction) is being sought. In a declaratory judgment action, if under the facts as proved, there is some possibility of a future need for relief as among the parties, a declaratory judgment may be entered.

External link

---

United States Supreme Court cases | United States Native American case law | 1911 in law | Article Three case law