Defining U.S. Sovereignty Through Supreme Court Cases

Jan 12 / Dynamo Jakk


In the intricate tapestry of the United States legal system, the concept of sovereignty stands as a cornerstone, shaping the dynamics between the government and the governed. This sovereignty, a foundational principle embedded within the U.S. Constitution, delineates the scope of governmental power and underscores the primacy of the people's will. It’s a concept that has been explored, defined, and redefined through various landmark Supreme Court decisions, each contributing to our understanding of the relationship between the individual, the state, and the nation.

As we delve into this rich legal landscape, we will focus on four pivotal Supreme Court cases: Julliard v. Greenman (1884), Hale v. Henkel (1906), Perry v. U.S. (1935), and Yik Wo v. Hopkins (1886). Each of these cases offers a unique perspective on the nature of sovereignty within the U.S. legal framework, painting a picture of how sovereignty has been interpreted and applied over time. From the limits of congressional power in Julliard v. Greenman to the individual rights emphasized in Hale v. Henkel, the assertion of popular sovereignty in Perry v. U.S., and the delegation of sovereign powers in Yik Wo v. Hopkins, these cases collectively illustrate the evolving dialogue on what it means for sovereignty to reside with the people. As we explore these cases, we not only gain insight into the historical context of sovereignty but also discern its contemporary relevance and impact on the American legal and political narrative.

Julliard v. Greenman (1884)

Summary of the Case:

Julliard v. Greenman, decided in 1884, is a landmark case that tackled the extent of congressional power under the U.S. Constitution, specifically in the realm of currency regulation. The case arose when Julliard, a New York businessman, refused to accept a legal tender note in payment of a debt owed by Greenman. The key issue revolved around whether Congress had the authority to make paper money legal tender for the payment of debts, even in times of peace. The Supreme Court, in a significant decision, upheld the Legal Tender Act, affirming Congress's power to issue paper currency and declare it legal tender.

Key Statement:

The court stated, “There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States .... In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution, entrusted to it: All else is withheld.”

Implications for Government Powers:

The ruling in Julliard v. Greenman had profound implications for the concept of government powers in the U.S. Firstly, it reinforced the idea that the federal government does not possess inherent sovereign powers, unlike monarchies or other forms of government where sovereignty is vested in a ruler or ruling class. Instead, the U.S. government's powers are derived from the Constitution, which itself is a creation of the people. This emphasizes the principle that in the United States, sovereignty resides fundamentally with the populace.

Secondly, the decision expanded the interpretation of the powers granted to Congress under the Constitution, especially in terms of economic and financial regulation. By upholding the legality of the Legal Tender Act, the Supreme Court allowed a broad exercise of congressional authority over monetary policy, a power that is not explicitly outlined in the Constitution but was deemed necessary and proper for carrying out its enumerated powers.

Finally, this ruling underscored the balance that needs to be maintained between federal authority and individual rights. While it affirmed the wide-ranging powers of Congress, it also reminded that these powers have limits, boundaries set by the Constitution as an expression of the people's will. Thus, Julliard v. Greenman serves as a crucial precedent in understanding the nature of federal power and its roots in popular sovereignty.

Hale v. Henkel (1906)

Overview of the Case:

Hale v. Henkel was a pivotal Supreme Court case in 1906, primarily dealing with corporate law and the scope of individual rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The case emerged from a subpoena issued to Theodore N. Vail, the president of the American Tobacco Company, requiring him to testify and produce company documents in a federal antitrust investigation. Hale, a company officer, challenged this subpoena, arguing it violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures and his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Court’s View on Individual Rights and Due Process:

The Supreme Court's decision in this case significantly impacted the interpretation of individual rights and due process. The Court held that a corporation, unlike an individual, does not have the privilege against self-incrimination. However, it acknowledged that individual officers of a corporation could not be forced to produce incriminating documents personally. The ruling stated, “His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.”

Significance of the Ruling:

The significance of Hale v. Henkel is multifaceted, particularly in shaping the relationship between the state and the individual. Firstly, it established a clear distinction in the application of constitutional rights between individuals and corporations, a distinction that continues to influence corporate law and civil liberties.

Secondly, by affirming the individual’s right to protection against self-incrimination and unreasonable searches, the decision reinforced the notion that individual rights are inherent and precede the formation of the state. This emphasis on the pre-existence of individual rights relative to the state underscores a fundamental principle of American constitutional theory – that the state's role is to protect rights that inherently belong to individuals, not to grant them.

Lastly, the ruling in Hale v. Henkel underscores the importance of due process as a critical safeguard in the legal system, ensuring that individual liberties are not overridden by the state's power. It highlights that any state action against an individual's rights must be justified through lawful procedures, aligning with the constitutional mandate.

Therefore, Hale v. Henkel remains a cornerstone case in American jurisprudence, highlighting the robust protection of individual rights and due process in the face of state power, a principle that continues to resonate in legal contexts today.

Perry v. U.S. (1935)

Case Background and Decision:

Perry v. United States, decided in 1935, revolved around the validity of a congressional action related to public debt. The case arose during the Great Depression when, in 1933, Congress passed a Joint Resolution to unilaterally alter the terms of bonds issued by the United States government. These bonds included a clause allowing holders to redeem them in gold, but the resolution nullified this clause. Perry, a bondholder, challenged the resolution, asserting that it violated the Fifth Amendment, which protects against the deprivation of property without due process of law.

The Supreme Court, in its decision, declared the Joint Resolution unconstitutional. The Court held that under the Constitution, specifically under Article I, Section 10, which prohibits any state from passing any law impairing the obligation of contracts, the government could not unilaterally alter its obligations concerning the gold payment clause in the bonds. This ruling emphasized that even during times of economic crisis, the Constitution’s protections and the government's obligations remain binding.

Ruling on Congressional Power and the Will of the People:

The Supreme Court, in its ruling, emphasized a crucial principle: “In United States, sovereignty resides in people... the Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the People to override their will as thus declared.” This statement explicitly underlined the limitation of congressional power in the face of the Constitution, which itself is a manifestation of the people’s will.

Reinforcement of Popular Sovereignty:

Perry v. U.S. significantly reinforces the concept of popular sovereignty in the U.S. legal framework. The decision serves as a reminder that the government, including Congress, operates within the bounds set by the Constitution, which is the supreme expression of the people's sovereignty. By asserting that Congress cannot override this will, the ruling highlights the supremacy of the people in the constitutional hierarchy.

This case also underscores the idea that constitutional rights and guarantees do not yield even in the face of economic or political exigencies. It affirms that the people’s will, as embedded in the Constitution, sets a steadfast framework within which all government actions must be confined.

Furthermore, Perry v. U.S. illustrates the role of the judiciary in upholding the principles of the Constitution against legislative overreach, thereby ensuring that the sovereign will of the people, as expressed through their Constitution, remains paramount. This decision hence serves as a bulwark against arbitrary exercises of governmental power, reinforcing the foundational concept that in the United States, sovereignty truly resides with the people.

Yik Wo v. Hopkins (1886)

Case Outline and Historical Context:

Yik Wo v. Hopkins, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1886, is a seminal case in the annals of civil rights law and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The case originated in San Francisco, where a city ordinance regarding the operation of laundry businesses was being enforced in a racially discriminatory manner. While the ordinance itself was neutral on its face, in practice, it was applied exclusively against Chinese laundry owners. Yik Wo, a Chinese immigrant, was among those affected; he was denied a permit to operate his laundry in a wooden building, a common practice among Chinese laundries, while non-Chinese operators in similar buildings were granted permits.

The Court’s Views on Sovereignty and Its Delegation:

In its decision, the Supreme Court made profound observations on the nature of sovereignty and its delegation. The Court stated, “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law...While sovereign powers are delegated to ... the government, sovereignty itself remains with the people.” This statement underlines the foundational principle that the ultimate source of sovereign power in the U.S. is the people, and the government is merely a custodian of this power, entrusted to exercise it in accordance with the law and the Constitution.

Illustration of Sovereignty Remaining with the People:

Yik Wo v. Hopkins powerfully illustrates the concept of sovereignty remaining with the people in several ways:

  1. Protection of Individual Rights Against Discriminatory Practices: By overturning the discriminatory application of the ordinance, the Court reaffirmed that individual rights, protected under the Constitution, are paramount and cannot be infringed upon by unjust governmental actions. This decision highlights that the government's authority, derived from the people, must be exercised equitably and justly for all, regardless of race or origin.

  2. Judicial Enforcement of Constitutional Guarantees: The ruling demonstrates the judiciary’s role as a guardian of the Constitution and protector of individual rights. By holding the government accountable for its actions, the Court reinforced the idea that constitutional guarantees are supreme and must be upheld, thereby ensuring that sovereignty, vested in the people, is not eroded by governmental overreach.

  3. Affirmation of Equal Protection Under the Law: The decision underscored the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law, a critical aspect of popular sovereignty. It established a precedent that laws must be applied uniformly, without discrimination, upholding the principle that all individuals, irrespective of background, share equally in the sovereignty vested in the people.

In summary, Yik Wo v. Hopkins not only addressed a specific instance of racial discrimination but also affirmed broader principles of sovereignty, civil rights, and constitutional governance, asserting the enduring concept that in the United States, sovereignty resides fundamentally with the people, and governmental power must be exercised in accordance with this principle.

The Concept of a Government Serving the People

Elaboration on the Idea:

In the United States, the foundational principle of the government is that it exists to serve the people, rather than the people existing to serve the government. This idea is deeply rooted in the ethos of American democracy and is reflected in the opening words of the Constitution: “We the People.” This phrase encapsulates the notion that all government power and authority in the U.S. are derived from the consent of the governed. The government is established not as an end in itself but as a means to secure the inalienable rights and welfare of the populace. 

Implications of a Government Based on Equality and Delegated Powers:

A government founded on the principles of equality and delegated powers has several key implications:

  1. Democratic Legitimacy: The government's legitimacy stems from its ability to reflect and represent the will of the people. This means that governmental actions and policies should be in alignment with the interests and welfare of the citizenry, as opposed to serving narrow or elite interests.

  2. Limited Powers: Since the government's powers are delegated by the people, it is inherently limited to the scope of authority granted by the Constitution. This framework ensures that the government cannot overstep its bounds and encroach on individual freedoms and rights.

  3. Accountability and Responsiveness: A government based on equality and delegated powers is accountable to the people. It must be responsive to their needs and subject to checks and balances to prevent any abuse of power.

Private Rights Protection and the Government’s Role:

One of the fundamental roles of the government in the U.S. is the protection of private rights. These rights include the right to property, the right to privacy, and the right to freedom of expression, among others. The government is tasked with creating and enforcing laws that protect these rights from infringement, whether by other individuals, entities, or the government itself. This role is crucial for maintaining the rule of law and ensuring that the freedoms and liberties of individuals are safeguarded.

Moreover, the protection of private rights also extends to ensuring equal treatment under the law and the provision of remedies when these rights are violated. The government's role in this regard is not just passive but actively involves creating a legal and judicial framework where individuals can seek and obtain redress.

In essence, the concept of a government serving the people, grounded in equality and delegated powers, forms the bedrock of American democracy. It ensures that the government remains a tool for the common good, dedicated to protecting individual rights and liberties, and perpetually accountable to the people from whom its power is derived.

Sovereignty and Individual Rights

Government's Limitation in Changing Individual's Civil Status Without Consent:

One of the fundamental principles in a democratic society where sovereignty rests with the people is that the government cannot lawfully alter an individual's civil status without their consent. Civil status encompasses various legal recognitions afforded to a person, such as citizenship, residency, or legal capacity. The premise here is that these statuses are intrinsically linked to a person's rights and freedoms, and any change to them directly impacts their liberties and social identity.

  • Consent as a Keystone: The requirement of consent ensures that individuals have control over their legal identities and the protections associated with them. It acts as a safeguard against arbitrary or coercive state actions that could otherwise infringe upon personal freedoms.

  • Legal and Ethical Boundaries: This limitation on the government's power to change civil status without consent is not just a legal formality but also an ethical boundary. It upholds the respect for individual autonomy and dignity, which are core values in a society where people are the ultimate sovereigns.

Maxim: Government Power Limited to People's Delegation:

The maxim that the government cannot have more power than what is delegated by the people is a fundamental tenet of democratic governance. It reflects the principle that all governmental authority originates from the consent of the governed, as articulated in the social contract theory.

  • Scope of Governmental Authority: The extent and nature of the powers exercised by the government are confined to what the people have conferred through the Constitution and laws. This delegation is not absolute or indefinite; it is subject to the changing will and needs of the people.

  • Checks and Balances: This principle necessitates a system of checks and balances, ensuring that the government does not exceed its mandate or infringe upon the rights and liberties of individuals. The separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches is a structural embodiment of this maxim.

  • People as Ultimate Arbiters: Ultimately, this maxim positions the people as the ultimate arbiters of governmental power. It ensures that the government remains a servant of the people, accountable and responsive to their will. In a democratic society, the government's legitimacy and authority are continually measured against the yardstick of the people's consent and delegation.

In summary, the relationship between sovereignty, individual rights, and governmental power is characterized by the principles of consent and delegated authority. The government's inability to unilaterally change an individual's civil status and its limited power, as circumscribed by the people's delegation, are crucial in maintaining a democratic society where the individual's rights and sovereignty are paramount.

Government as a Delegated Authority

Legal Maxims Supporting Governmental Power Derived from the People:

The concept of the government as a delegated authority, with its power originating from the people, is supported by several legal maxims. These maxims, rooted in constitutional law and democratic theory, provide a framework for understanding the nature of governmental power.

  1. Quod meum est sine me auferri non potest” (What is mine cannot be taken away without my consent): This maxim emphasizes the sovereignty of the individual and their inherent rights. In the context of government power, it signifies that the people, as the holders of sovereignty, have the ultimate authority to consent to governmental actions and policies. The government cannot legitimately exercise power or take away rights without the consent of those it governs.

  2. Derivativa potestas non potest esse major primitive” (The power which is derived cannot be greater than that from which it is derived): This principle underscores that the government, being a creation of the people, cannot possess powers greater than those granted by the people. It establishes a ceiling on the scope and extent of governmental authority, ensuring that the government remains a servant rather than a master.

  3. “Nemo potest facere per obliquum quod non potest facere per directum” (No one can do indirectly what cannot be done directly): This legal principle is crucial in preventing the government from circumventing the limits of its power through indirect means. It maintains the integrity of the delegation of power by ensuring that all governmental actions align with the letter and spirit of the law and the Constitution.

  4. “Quod per me non possum, nec per alium” (What I cannot do in person, I cannot do through the agency of another): This maxim reinforces the idea that the government cannot delegate powers it does not possess. It ensures that the government remains within the boundaries of its authority as defined by the people.

Analysis of the Relationship Between Government and Individual:

These maxims play a critical role in shaping the relationship between the government and the individual:

  1. Respect for Individual Sovereignty: The maxims collectively affirm that the individual's rights and freedoms are paramount. They reinforce the notion that the government's role is to protect these rights, not to infringe upon them without legitimate consent.

  2. Accountability and Limitation of Power: By establishing that governmental power is derived and limited, these principles ensure that the government remains accountable to the people. They prevent the overreach of governmental authority and safeguard democratic governance.

  3. Dynamic Interaction: The relationship between the government and the individual is not static but dynamic. As societal values and norms evolve, so does the interpretation and application of these maxims, ensuring that the balance of power adapts to changing contexts.

  4. Foundation for Democratic Governance: These maxims underpin the democratic process, ensuring that the government's actions are always subject to scrutiny and consent by the governed. They form the legal and moral foundation for a government that serves its people, upholding the principles of liberty, equality, and justice.

In conclusion, these legal maxims are instrumental in defining the nature of governmental power as one that is derived from and limited by the people's will. They form the bedrock of a democratic society, ensuring that the government remains a delegated authority, accountable to and serving the people.

Challenging Misconceptions about Sovereignty

Common Misconceptions About Sovereignty:

A prevalent misconception is that sovereignty is exclusively a trait of the government or collective groups, with individuals having little to no sovereign authority. This view overlooks the fundamental democratic principle that sovereignty originates from and resides with the people.

Refuting Misconceptions with Legal Reasoning and Supreme Court Cases:

  1. Sovereignty Resides with the People:

    - Legal Foundation: The U.S. Constitution begins with "We the People," underscoring that all governmental power is derived from the people. This is the essence of popular sovereignty – the idea that the ultimate source of authority is the people themselves, not the government or any other entity.

    - Supreme Court Case: In cases like Yik Wo v. Hopkins (1886), the Court emphasized that "Sovereignty itself remains with the people," highlighting that individual rights and liberties are paramount and cannot be overridden by discriminatory governmental actions.

  2. Individual Sovereignty and Rights:

    Legal Foundation: The Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments to the Constitution explicitly protect individual rights, reinforcing the concept that individuals possess inherent sovereignty in terms of their freedoms and liberties.

    Supreme Court Case: In Hale v. Henkel (1906), the Court affirmed the principle that individual rights, such as the right to protection against self-incrimination and unreasonable searches, are fundamental and cannot be infringed upon by the state.

  3. Government as a Servant, Not a Master:

    Legal Foundation: The principle of limited government, enshrined in the Constitution, posits that the government's powers are confined to those delegated by the people. This refutes the idea of government or collective sovereignty being absolute.

    Supreme Court Case: In Perry v. U.S. (1935), the Court ruled that "the Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the People to override their will as thus declared," asserting that governmental power is not only derived from but also limited by the will of the people.

  4. Equality Before the Law:

    Legal Foundation: The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause establishes that all persons, irrespective of their status, are to be treated equally before the law, negating the notion of a higher sovereign class or group.

    Supreme Court Case: In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Court overturned the doctrine of “separate but equal,” affirming the principle of equality and individual dignity against systemic and institutional biases, thereby reinforcing the concept of individual sovereignty in the realm of civil rights.

In conclusion, the legal reasoning based on the Constitution and various landmark Supreme Court cases fundamentally challenges the misconceptions about sovereignty. It underscores that in a democratic society like the United States, sovereignty is neither the exclusive domain of the government nor of collective groups but is rooted in and exercised by the people, both individually and collectively.

Legal Definitions and Personal Judgment

Importance of Understanding Legal Definitions ('Words of Art'):

Legal definitions, often referred to as "Words of Art," play a crucial role in the interpretation and application of laws. These specialized terms have specific meanings within the legal context, which can significantly differ from their everyday usage.

  1. Precision and Clarity: Legal definitions are designed to provide precision and clarity in the law. Understanding these definitions is essential to grasp the exact scope and implications of legal provisions.

  2. Avoiding Misinterpretation: A misinterpretation of legal terminology can lead to incorrect applications of the law, resulting in injustices or unintended legal consequences. Knowledge of legal definitions helps in accurately comprehending the law's intent and scope.

  3. Informed Decision-Making: For individuals, particularly those representing themselves in legal matters, understanding legal definitions is vital for making informed decisions. It aids in the preparation of legal documents, arguments, and comprehending the legal obligations and rights involved.

Role of Personal Judgment in Interpreting Laws:

The role of personal judgment in interpreting laws is a fundamental aspect of legal analysis and decision-making, both for legal professionals and laypersons.

  1. Application to Specific Circumstances: Laws are often written in general terms and need to be applied to specific circumstances. Personal judgment is crucial in determining how a law applies in a particular context or situation.

  2. Analyzing Ambiguities and Gaps: Not all legal questions are straightforward. Laws can have ambiguities or gaps, and personal judgment is necessary to interpret these areas, often relying on principles of justice, equity, and common sense.

  3. Reflecting Societal Values: Personal judgment in law isn't just about individual perspectives; it's also about reflecting societal values and norms. Judges and legal practitioners, while interpreting laws, often consider the prevailing social, moral, and ethical standards.

  4. Balancing Letter and Spirit of the Law: Personal judgment is essential in balancing the letter of the law with its spirit – the underlying principles and intentions behind a legal provision. This balance is crucial for fair and just legal outcomes.

  5. Evolution of Legal Interpretation: Over time, personal judgment contributes to the evolution of legal interpretations. As societies evolve, so do interpretations of laws, reflecting changing values and circumstances.

In conclusion, understanding legal definitions is essential for accurately interpreting and applying the law. Simultaneously, personal judgment plays a critical role in applying legal principles to specific cases, interpreting ambiguities, reflecting societal values, and balancing the letter and spirit of the law. This interplay between defined legal terms and personal interpretation is fundamental to the functioning and evolution of the legal system.


Throughout this blog, we have explored the profound and multifaceted concept of sovereignty in the United States, primarily through the lens of landmark Supreme Court cases. These cases – Julliard v. Greenman, Hale v. Henkel, Perry v. U.S., and Yik Wo v. Hopkins – each contribute uniquely to our understanding of the intricate relationship between the government, the individual, and the collective will of the people.

  1. Sovereignty Resides with the People: We emphasized that sovereignty in the U.S. is fundamentally vested in the people. This principle, evident in the Constitution and affirmed by the Supreme Court, places the populace at the heart of governmental authority.

  2. Government as a Delegated Authority: The government’s power is derived from and limited by the people’s will. This concept is crucial in maintaining a balance where the government acts as a servant, not a master, to the people it represents.

  3. Protection of Individual Rights: The Supreme Court cases highlighted the inherent rights of individuals, which the government is bound to respect and protect. This includes the right against self-incrimination, protection from unlawful searches and seizures, and equal treatment under the law.

  4. Legal Maxims and Personal Judgment: The importance of legal definitions ('Words of Art') and the role of personal judgment in interpreting laws were discussed, emphasizing the dynamic nature of legal interpretation and its adaptation to societal changes.

Reflecting on the importance of these Supreme Court cases, we see a tapestry of legal thought that has significantly shaped the understanding of sovereignty in the U.S. These decisions have not only defined the contours of governmental power but also safeguarded the rights and freedoms of individuals, echoing the democratic ethos upon which the nation was founded.

As we consider contemporary legal and political issues, it is imperative to remember these principles. The balance of power between the individual and the state, the scope of governmental authority, and the protection of civil liberties remain as relevant today as they were in the past. These cases provide a blueprint for navigating modern challenges, reminding us of the enduring values of democracy, equality, and justice.

Check out the latest from our blog


Created with