Biddle v. United States: Discuss

[Makko Oko]

Biddle v. United States was a case argued to the United States Court Of Appeals, 9th Circuit on October 28th, 1907 and it established that the laws of the District Of Columbia, were to apply as federal laws whenever there was a lack of national legislation. Furthermore, it went on to state that the laws of the US apply to every American national, in any country. This was during the time of the establishment of the United States Court For China however, but more on that if any of you are interested.

As stipulated in Biddle v. United States:

That when any offense is committed in any place, jurisdiction over which has been retained by the United States or ceded to it by a state, or which has been purchased with the consent of a state for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard or other needful building or structure, the punishment for which offense is not provided for by any law of the United States, the person committing such offense shall, upon conviction in a circuit or district court of the United States for the district in which the offense was committed, be liable to and receive the same punishment as the laws of the state in which such place is situated now provide for the like offense when committed within the jurisdiction of such state, and the said courts are hereby vested with jurisdiction for such purposes; and no subsequent repeal of any such state law shall affect any such prosecution.

Biddle v. United States, 156 F. 759, 763 (9th Cir. 1907)

What do you all think about it? Let's discuss! You can read more about it here: https://casetext.com/case/biddle-v-united-states-3

[Infected Mushroom]

Do you mean Biden v. United States?

[Makko Oko]

Do you mean Biden v. United States?

No, I mean Biddle. I can see why you'd think that though. I mean, the link I put on there clearly says Biddle as well.

[Infected Mushroom]

Is it a controversial case? It doesn’t seem too unreasonable? Or maybe I missed something?

[Makko Oko]

Is it a controversial case? It doesn’t seem too unreasonable? Or maybe I missed something?

The case actually isn't well-known (not surprising most likely lol) but I'd say it's a case we could discuss. I mean, if you look at what I said regarding the case, I said DC law would become federal law, not to mention US citizens are to abide by US law in ANY country. May not sound controversial, but with this information, we could 'save democracy' as some may say through DC law converting into federal law.

For instance, currently, DC law has a law where LGBTQ+ elderly people are protected from discrimination, etc. in nursing homes and such. There is no federal law that is even so much as similar to this one, therefore, this could in theory become federal law without congressional approval. Imagine if there was a rogue Mayor in DC though, then bad laws could be enacted as federal laws to affect us all.

[Free Algerstonia]

so who do we think is gonna win

[Deknis]

Did you say vS ?

[Haganham]

Do you mean Biden v. United States?

he's not that old!

[Makko Oko]

Do you mean Biden v. United States?

he's not that old!

Funnily enough, I googled it, there is no Biden v. United States, just Biden v. (Name Republican State Here) LOL. So like Biden v. Florida for instance. There's a lot of cases with Biden and states, most of them, if not all of them, filed after he became President.

[Picairn]

Context: Our American defendant tried to claim that the US Court for China (USCC) had no jurisdiction to try him and that the offense was not made a crime by the US, which the Court of Appeals (COA) refuted by presenting examples, which I'll cite below. The second part of his claim is that the evidence for his conviction was not sufficient, which the COA agreed.

The paragraph you cited only says that if a person commits a crime on federal territory and the federal punishment for that crime is nonexistent, then that person shall be punished by state laws where the crime is committed upon conviction by a circuit or court of appeals of the district where the crime is committed. Nothing in that says the laws of DC or any state shall become federal law when the latter is nonexistent on an issue. It is also part of a Congressional statute from what I can tell, though I don't know what 30 Stat. 717 means, couldn't find it.

As the below conclusion states:

Under this statute, any act committed in any place under the jurisdiction of the United States, if made an offense by the laws of the state in which such place is situate, when committed elsewhere in the state, is an offense against the United States, and punishable as in the state law provided.

Since the federal statute deferred punishment to state laws where federal ones were nonexistent, and the act of "obtaining money or goods by false pretenses" was made a crime in most of the US states at the time + additional federal laws in Alaska, DC, and "the act of July 7, 1898", the Court of Appeals concluded that the offense was indeed a crime against the laws of the US, and since the statute for the establishment of the USCC conferred jurisdiction to all cases happening in China to the Court, the USCC had full jurisdiction to try our defendant.

At the date of the passage of the act of July 7, 1898, just quoted, the act of obtaining money or goods by false pretenses was made a crime by the laws of most of the states of the Union, and is, therefore, under this statute, also made a crime against the United States, in all places over which the United States exercises exclusive legislative jurisdiction, within the several states, having laws providing for the punishment of such an act as a crime.

In view of the legislation of Congress to which we have referred (the acts relating to Alaska and the District of Columbia, and the statute of July 7, 1898), our conclusion is that obtaining money or goods under false pretenses is an offense against the laws of the United States, within the meaning of the statute conferring jurisdiction upon the United States Court for China, and that an American citizen guilty of the commission of such an act in China is subject to trial and punishment therefor by that court.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

Would this apply to actions in Guantanamo Bay?

[Makko Oko]

Context: Our American defendant tried to claim that the US Court for China (USCC) had no jurisdiction to try him and that the offense was not made a crime by the US, which the Court of Appeals (COA) refuted by presenting examples, which I'll cite below. The second part of his claim is that the evidence for his conviction was not sufficient, which the COA agreed.

The paragraph you cited only says that if a person commits a crime on federal territory and the federal punishment for that crime is nonexistent, then that person shall be punished by state laws where the crime is committed upon conviction by a circuit or court of appeals of the district where the crime is committed. Nothing in that says the laws of DC or any state shall become federal law when the latter is nonexistent on an issue. It is also part of a Congressional statute from what I can tell, though I don't know what 30 Stat. 717 means, couldn't find it.

As the below conclusion states:

Under this statute, any act committed in any place under the jurisdiction of the United States, if made an offense by the laws of the state in which such place is situate, when committed elsewhere in the state, is an offense against the United States, and punishable as in the state law provided.

Since the federal statute deferred punishment to state laws where federal ones were nonexistent, and the act of "obtaining money or goods by false pretenses" was made a crime in most of the US states at the time + additional federal laws in Alaska, DC, and "the act of July 7, 1898", the Court of Appeals concluded that the offense was indeed a crime against the laws of the US, and since the COA believed said statute deferred jurisdiction upon the USCC as the court for examining cases where the crime happened, the USCC had full jurisdiction to try our defendant.

At the date of the passage of the act of July 7, 1898, just quoted, the act of obtaining money or goods by false pretenses was made a crime by the laws of most of the states of the Union, and is, therefore, under this statute, also made a crime against the United States, in all places over which the United States exercises exclusive legislative jurisdiction, within the several states, having laws providing for the punishment of such an act as a crime.

In view of the legislation of Congress to which we have referred (the acts relating to Alaska and the District of Columbia, and the statute of July 7, 1898), our conclusion is that obtaining money or goods under false pretenses is an offense against the laws of the United States, within the meaning of the statute conferring jurisdiction upon the United States Court for China, and that an American citizen guilty of the commission of such an act in China is subject to trial and punishment therefor by that court.

Appreciate that insight, thanks for that! Now, here's an interesting question. Since the District Of Columbia doesn't have statehood, and legally under the US Constitution, stipulated within the 10th Amendment, states legally have delegated powers that the federal government doesn't have specifically stipulated under said Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Does this mean that the right to write a law on an issue that the federal government hasn't yet tackled is not legally a right offered to the District Of Columbia's government? Also FYI, don't quote me on that, that may not even be an official power, it's just something I heard from a friend.

And also, since federal statute deferred to state laws, does this not mean that technically, it's deferring to District Of Columbian law, seeing as it's not an official state? It also mentioned the territory of Alaska but due to it now being a state, I don't think they apply in this instance.

[Picairn]

Appreciate that insight, thanks for that! Now, here's an interesting question. Since the District Of Columbia doesn't have statehood, and legally under the US Constitution, stipulated within the 10th Amendment, states legally have delegated powers that the federal government doesn't have specifically stipulated under said Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Does this mean that the right to write a law on an issue that the federal government hasn't yet tackled is not legally a right offered to the District Of Columbia's government? Also FYI, don't quote me on that, that may not even be an official power, it's just something I heard from a friend.

And also, since federal statute deferred to state laws, does this not mean that technically, it's deferring to District Of Columbian law, seeing as it's not an official state? It also mentioned the territory of Alaska but due to it now being a state, I don't think they apply in this instance.

Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution gives Congress the ability to "exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever" over DC and other federal territories (forts, dockyards, arsenals, etc). This means that the US Congress is the ultimate authority over DC residents, although the Founding Fathers did envision a form of autonomy and self-governance for them, as Madison stated in Federalist No. 43:

The extent of this federal district is sufficiently circumscribed to satisfy every jealousy of an opposite nature. And as it is to be appropriated to this use with the consent of the State ceding it; as the State will no doubt provide in the compact for the rights and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it; as the inhabitants will find sufficient inducements of interest to become willing parties to the cession; as they will have had their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them; as a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them; and as the authority of the legislature of the State, and of the inhabitants of the ceded part of it, to concur in the cession, will be derived from the whole people of the State in their adoption of the Constitution, every imaginable objection seems to be obviated.

So Madison did understand that DC would need to create a legislature and make its own laws for local purposes. Successive Congresses would fluctuate between organizing a local government for DC (Organic Acts of 1801 and 1871) or abolishing it for direct rule (as happened in 1874 and continued until 1967). The DC Home Rule Act of 1973 created a popularly elected position of Mayor and a 13-member Council, which has law-making powers but all legislation made by the Council is subject to final approval of Congress. As noted Congress can review and reject all bills passed by the Council even if they were passed by a large majority, pass laws without the consent of the DC government or the residents, and even revoke the city charter altogether. Therefore, the District of Columbia do have law-making powers but they are limited by US Congress's authority.

Since DC is not a State, the 10th Amendment does not apply. Its legislative authority is limited by Congress, and can be curtailed or revoked at any time, but it can make laws where federal law is nonexistent provided Congress consents to it.

As for the deferring question, I'm afraid I don't have an answer at the moment. It's late and perhaps I'll answer it later when I have made more research.

[Ethel mermania]

You may want to reread the case.

Biddle is about US courts in china, enforcing common law in China

[Makko Oko]

You may want to reread the case.

Biddle is about US courts in china, enforcing common law in China

I mean I knew it was, but can't precedent apply in other cases as well? It never expressly said the deferment was only internationally after all. It all depends on the wording.

[Ethel mermania]

You may want to reread the case.

Biddle is about US courts in china, enforcing common law in China

I mean I knew it was, but can't precedent apply in other cases as well? It never expressly said the deferment was only internationally after all. It all depends on the wording.

The idea was that if there was no controlling local authority. ( for your example). If someone yells anti gAy slurs in a federal facility in DC, the federal court should enforce the local law. Lets say Texas has no anti gay slur law. A similar situation would have the court allowing the slur to pass as there is no Texas law saying you can't slur gays.

The local federal court in texas can't enforce DC law in Texas. Only federal and texan law.

Hope this helps.

[Hispida]

it's fucking stupid that US laws apply to US nationals worldwide if i'm reading this right

[Bombadil]

it's fucking stupid that US laws apply to US nationals worldwide if i'm reading this right

I think it depends and it's a thorny issue. Say, for example, an American moves somewhere and starts defrauding Americans with internet scams. In Russia, for example, as long as you're not defrauding Russians you can do what you like. Now, it's not to say US police can go arrest someone but that crime should still be a crime on return to the US.

Having said that, China applies its laws to anyone anywhere, transgress Chinese law no matter who you are or where you are, step on Chinese soil and you can be arrested. It's why the Extradition Laws in HK caused such as issue.

It's why tax havens are a thing, the City of London, that is the specific area of London called the City, not the overall city itself, is a freaking law unto itself, which is why so much illegal money moves through it to havens nominally under British control.

So I think there needs to be a mix here.

[Picairn]

So after rereading the case 5 times, I'll attempt to summarize the jurisdiction part in key points to clarify any confusion:

1. An Act of June 30, 1906 established the USCC and section 1 of the Act gave it "exclusive jurisdiction in all cases" whereof it was exercised by American consuls and treaties between the US and China. Since the US obtained jurisdiction from China by the treaties of that time, it was proper that a court for said jurisdiction was created.
2. Section 4 of this Act states that if the federal laws of the US are nonexistent or deficient on an issue, then common law or precedents made by the courts of the US shall apply in the USCC's jurisdiction.
3. Common law had a statute criminalizing the offense of "obtaining money or goods by false pretenses" in 1757 (30 Geo. II), and subsequent amendments were made to the statute. Since said law was in effect in the American colonies prior to their independence, it could be considered common law if Congress agreed.
4. Common law is moot, however, since Congress had already criminalized the offense in places where it held "exclusive jurisdiction" (Alaska and DC at the time) with statutory punishments attached.
5. The Act of July 7, 1898 (30 Stat. 717) defers punishment to state law where federal law is non-existent on an issue, applied on federal territory, upon conviction in a circuit or district court of the district where the crime was committed.
6. Since most of the US states had a law criminalizing the offense, in accordance with the Act of 1898 the offense was to be considered a crime against the US, in all places where it exercised exclusive jurisdiction, within the several states, having laws providing for the punishment of such an act as a crime.
7. As federal law provided for the punishment of the crime, it was indeed against the laws of the US, and our defendant was liable for trial and judgment by the USCC, whose jurisdiction had been granted by its establishment act.

So goes the reasoning of our Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.

[Infected Mushroom]

So after rereading the case 5 times, I'll attempt to summarize the jurisdiction part in key points to clarify any confusion:

1. An Act of June 30, 1906 established the USCC and section 1 of the Act gave it "exclusive jurisdiction in all cases" whereof it was exercised by American consuls and treaties between the US and China. Since the US obtained jurisdiction from China by the treaties of that time, it was proper that a court for said jurisdiction was created.
2. Section 4 of this Act states that if the federal laws of the US are nonexistent or deficient on an issue, then common law or precedents made by the courts of the US shall apply in the USCC's jurisdiction.
3. Common law had a statute criminalizing the offense of "obtaining money or goods by false pretenses" in 1757 (30 Geo. II), and subsequent amendments were made to the statute. Since said law was in effect in the American colonies prior to their independence, it could be considered common law if Congress agreed.
4. Common law is moot, however, since Congress had already criminalized the offense in places where it held "exclusive jurisdiction" (Alaska and DC at the time) with statutory punishments attached.
5. The Act of July 7, 1898 (30 Stat. 717) defers punishment to state law where federal law is non-existent on an issue, applied on federal territory, upon conviction in a circuit or district court of the district where the crime was committed.
6. Since most of the US states had a law criminalizing the offense, in accordance with the Act of 1898 the offense was to be considered a crime against the US, in all places where it exercised exclusive jurisdiction, within the several states, having laws providing for the punishment of such an act as a crime.
7. As federal law provided for the punishment of the crime, it was indeed against the laws of the US, and our defendant was liable for trial and judgment by the USCC, whose jurisdiction had been granted by its establishment act.

So goes the reasoning of our Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.

Is this in English?

[Picairn]

Is this in English?

What further simplifications do you want? Do you want me to make a graph or something? No.

[Infected Mushroom]

Is this in English?

What further simplifications do you want? Do you want me to make a graph or something? No.

I’m just reading it and I am not able to understand it. Words are being registered but somehow it doesn’t link together in a way I can understand.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

What further simplifications do you want? Do you want me to make a graph or something? No.

I’m just reading it and I am not able to understand it. Words are being registered but somehow it doesn’t link together in a way I can understand.

Step 1: The US as one of the many unequal treaties imposed upon China and in complete disregard for its sovereignty, obtained extraterritoriality for its citizens actions in China: IE American citizens answered to the US for their bad acts in China, and were completely immune from action by the Chinese authorities.

Step 2: The US created a special court in China to decide such cases.

Step 3: The statute creating that court says that US Federal law shall apply in that court. Where Federal law does not exist or is deficient, then the common law and precedents from US courts shall apply.

Step 4: Biddle swindles some Chinese folk and somehow, for whatever reason, is actually prosecuted instead of being applauded.

Step 5: Biddle says "obtaining money or goods by false pretenses" is not a Federal Crime (and in fact cannot be thanks to the wisdom of the Constitution, which people actually cared about at the time) nor is it a common law crime.

Step 6a: 9th circuit says "Actually it was a crime when the colonies became independent, and therefore IS a crime at common law unless abrogated" (personally they should have stopped HERE and while, perhaps, a little wanky, would have been a reasonable contention in light of how the US courts treat pre-independence British law).

Step 6b: The Act of July 7, 1898 (then 30 Stat. 717, now 18 USC 13) says if you commit a crime on federal land that is not a federal crime, but IS a crime in the state, territory, possession, or district in which the federal land is located, then the federal court shall (effectively) import and enforce the state law. (true as far as it goes, but I think we are seeing the logical flaw of the 9th circuit here).

Step 6c: Congress had made it an offense in DC and Alaska (and probably Hawai'i and the Philippines but we will gloss over those bits of naked colonialism for the moment since we are also pretending China actually agreed to this instead of being dictated to at gunpoint). It was also a crime in the majority of the states. Therefore, it is a crime against the laws of the United States. (I personally agree this does not in any way logically follow from the text of the act, but 9th circuit is going to 9th circuit, even in 1907 apparently and make shit up to give the government more power, though it may be understandable in this case, since otherwise the treaty would effectively give Americans carte blanche to do whatever they want without repurc... wait that was not the entire point of the treaty?).