{"id":54759,"date":"2025-03-03T13:12:09","date_gmt":"2025-03-03T18:12:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/supreme\/supreme-court-insights\/cohens-v-virginia-case-summary.html"},"modified":"2025-03-03T13:15:22","modified_gmt":"2025-03-03T18:15:22","slug":"cohens-v-virginia-case-summary","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/supreme-court-insights\/cohens-v-virginia-case-summary.html","title":{"rendered":"Cohens v. Virginia Case Summary"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n

Cohens v. Virginia Case Summary<\/h1>\n
\n
\n By Christie Nicholson, J.D.<\/a> | Legally reviewed by Laura Temme, Esq.<\/a>\n | Last reviewed\n
\n \n <\/i>\n Legally Reviewed\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by FindLaw\u2019s team of legal writers and attorneys<\/a> and in accordance with our editorial standards<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n\n

\n \n <\/i>\n Fact-Checked\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our contributing authors<\/a>. We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please contact an attorney in your area<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n<\/section>\n

\n

Cohens v. Virginia was a landmark Supreme Court case focused on whether state governments can limit or restrict federal law. Specifically, whether the fact that the lottery was legal within the city of Washington, D.C. meant it was legal in other states as well. The Supreme Court determined that the federal government’s authorization of the National Lottery did not extend to allowing sales in states where such lotteries were illegal.<\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n\n

On June 26, 1820, the state of Virginia initiated grand jury proceedings against P.J. and M.J. Cohen for selling lottery tickets for the “National Lottery” to William H. Jennings in Norfolk, Virginia.<\/p>\r\n

Following the grand jury indictment<\/a>, James Nimmo, attorney for the Commonwealth of Virginia, filed charges against the Cohens with the Virginia courts. The charges stemmed from a Virginia law prohibiting the sale of lottery tickets except those authorized by the state.<\/p>\r\n

The defendants pleaded not guilty on September 2, 1820, and the case went to trial. The court found in favor of Nimmo. The Cohens ultimately appealed the state court decision to the highest court in America – the Supreme Court of the United States<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n

Issue Before the Supreme Court<\/b><\/h2>\r\n

The defendants did not dispute that they had sold tickets for the National Lottery. However, they argued that since the federal government permitted the National Lottery, the state of Virginia could not prohibit the defendants from selling lottery tickets.<\/p>\r\n

The state based its case against the Cohens on a Virginia law that went into effect on January 1, 1820. It prohibited the sale of lottery tickets not authorized by the state. The law called for a penalty of $100 for each offense.<\/p>\r\n

This case examines whether an act of Congress authorizing the National Lottery allows entities to sell tickets in states where lottery sales are illegal.<\/p>\r\n

State Law and Supreme Court Jurisdiction<\/b><\/h2>\r\n

The original criminal case against the Cohens was tried in state court. The state court held that the federal law allowing the National Lottery did not apply to sales of lottery tickets in other states. The Cohens disagreed with the court\u2019s finding and filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.<\/p>\r\n

Four years earlier, the Supreme Court held in Martin v. Hunter\u2019s Lessee<\/i><\/a> <\/i>(1816) that it had jurisdiction over state court cases through the supremacy clause<\/a> of the U.S. Constitution. The general rule of the supremacy clause is that if state and federal laws conflict, federal law wins.<\/p>\r\n

In light of this, the Court in Martin <\/i>held that the U.S. Supreme Court had the power to review state court decisions involving an interpretation of federal law or constitutional rights.<\/p>\r\n

The Supreme Court reaffirmed this idea in McCulloch v. Maryland<\/i><\/a>. <\/i>According to the justices in McCulloch, <\/i>the \u201cnecessary and proper<\/a>\u201d clause of Article I<\/a> prevents states from interfering with the federal government.<\/p>\r\n

Therefore, there was no question here that the Supreme Court had appellate jurisdiction<\/a> and the judicial power to review the lower court\u2019s decision in Cohen<\/i>.<\/p>\r\n

The U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s Decision and Analysis<\/b><\/h2>\r\n

The Supreme Court concluded that the Act did not grant such extra-territorial powers.<\/p>\r\n

Specifically, Chief Justice John Marshall concluded that:<\/p>\r\n