Head Money Cases facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Head Money Cases |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued November 19–20, 1884 Decided December 8, 1884 |
|
| Full case name | Edye and Another v. Robertson, Collector; Cunard Steamship Company v. Robertson; Same v. Same |
| Citations | 112 U.S. 580 (more)
5 S. Ct. 247; 28 L. Ed. 798; 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1909; 3 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 2473
|
| Prior history | On writs of error from the Circuit Courts of the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York |
| Holding | |
| Treaties do not hold a privileged position above other acts of Congress, and other laws affecting their "enforcement, modification, or repeal" are legitimate. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Miller, joined unanimously |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. | |
The Head Money Cases, also known as Edye v. Robertson, were important court cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1884. These cases were grouped together because they all dealt with the same legal question.
Why Did the Cases Happen?
In 1882, a new law called the Immigration Act was passed in the United States. This law said that ships bringing immigrants to the country had to pay a tax of fifty cents for each person.
Officers at the Port of New York started collecting this tax. However, some ship owners felt this tax was unfair. They were bringing immigrants from the Netherlands. The Netherlands had a special agreement, called a treaty, with the United States. This treaty seemed to say that such a tax was not allowed.
Because of this, the ship owners sued the government. They wanted the Supreme Court to decide if the new tax law went against the treaty.
What Did the Court Decide?
The Supreme Court had to decide which was more powerful: the new tax law or the existing treaty. The U.S. Constitution says that treaties are "the supreme law of the land." This means they are very important, just like federal laws.
However, in the Head Money Cases, the Supreme Court decided something very important. They ruled that treaties do not have a special power that puts them above all other laws passed by the U.S. Congress.
This means that Congress can pass new laws that might change, update, or even cancel parts of an older treaty. The Court said that these new laws are perfectly legal. This decision set a rule, or "precedent," for how treaties and other laws should be understood in the future.
