Connection lost
Server error
ABLEMAN v. BOOTH Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A Wisconsin state court released a federal prisoner held for violating the Fugitive Slave Act. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding that state courts have no authority to interfere with federal custody or review the judgments of federal courts on matters of federal law.
Legal Significance: This case established the absolute supremacy of federal courts over state courts in cases involving federal law. It affirmed that state courts cannot use writs of habeas corpus to release federal prisoners or otherwise interfere with the judgments and processes of the federal judiciary.
ABLEMAN v. BOOTH Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Sherman Booth was charged in federal court in Wisconsin with aiding the escape of a fugitive slave, a violation of the federal Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. A U.S. commissioner ordered him held for trial. Booth successfully petitioned a justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing the Fugitive Slave Act was unconstitutional. The state justice ordered Booth’s release, and the full Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed. Subsequently, a federal grand jury indicted Booth for the same offense. He was tried, convicted, and sentenced in the U.S. District Court for Wisconsin. Booth again petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus. The state court again ordered his release, declaring the federal court’s judgment a nullity. When the U.S. Marshal, Stephen Ableman, sought a writ of error from the U.S. Supreme Court to review the state court’s judgment, the Wisconsin court directed its clerk to defy the writ and make no return. The United States brought both cases to the Supreme Court.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Do state courts have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to release a prisoner held in custody by a federal officer under the authority of the United States, and to declare a federal law and a federal court’s judgment unconstitutional and void?
No. The Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Do state courts have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to release a prisoner held in custody by a federal officer under the authority of the United States, and to declare a federal law and a federal court’s judgment unconstitutional and void?
Conclusion
Ableman v. Booth stands as an unequivocal affirmation of federal judicial supremacy. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco labori
Legal Rule
Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Art. VI, cl. 2), Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugi
Legal Analysis
Writing for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice Taney established a foundational principle Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, c
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A state court has no authority to issue a writ of