Story, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a- writ of error from the court of appeals of Virginia, founded upon the refusal of that court to obey the mandate of this court, requiring the judgment rendered in this very Cause, at February term, 1813, to be carried into due execution. The following is the judgment of the court of appeals rendered on the mandate : 4iThe court is unanimously of opinion, that the ■ appéllate power. of the supreme court of the United States does not extend to this court, under a sound construction of the constitution of the United States; that so much of the 25th section of the act of congress to establish -the judicial courts of the United States, as extends the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court to this court, is not in pursuance of the constitution of the *324United States ; that the writ of error, in this cause, was improvidently allowed under the authority of that act; that the proceedings thereon in the supreme court were, coram non judice, in relation to this court, and that obedience to its mandate be declined by. the court.”

The questions involved in this judgment are of great importance and delicacy. Perhaps it is not too much to affirm, that, upon their right decision, rest some of the most solid principles which have hitherto been' supposed to sustain and protect the constitution itself. The great respectability, too, of the court whose decisions we are called úp,on to review, and the entire deference which we entertain for the learning and ability of that court, add much t© the difficulty of the task which has so unwelcomely fallen upon us. It is, however,-a source of consolation., that we have, had the assistance of most able and learned arguments to aid our inquiries ; and that the opinion which is now to be pronounced has been weighed with every solicitude to come to a correct result, and matured after solemn deliberation.

Before proceeding to the, principal questions, it may not be unfit to dispose of some preliminary considerations which have grown out of the arguments at the bar.

The constitution of the United States was ordained and established, not by the states in their sovereign capacities, but emphatically, as the preamble of the constitution declares, by “ the people of the United States.” There can be no doubt that it was cothpetent to the people to invest the general go*325vernment with all the powers which they might deem proper knd necessary; to extend or restrain these powers according to their own good pleasure* and to give them a paramount and supreme authority. As little doubt can there bé, that the people had a right to prohibit to the states the exercise of any powers which were* in their judgment, incompatible with the objects of the general compact; to make the _powers of the state governments, in given cases, subordinate to those of the nation, or to reserve to themselves those sovereign authorities :which they might not choose to delegate to either. The constitution was not, therefore, necessarily carved out of existing state sovereignties, nor a surrender of powers already existing in state institutions, for the powers of the states depend upon their own constitutions ; and the people of every state had the right to modify and restrain them, according to «their own views of policy or principle. On the other hand, it is perfectly clear that the sovereign powers vested in the state governments, by their respective constitutions, remained unaltered and unimpaired, except so far as they were granted to the government of the United States.

These deductions do not rest upon general reasoning, plain and obvious as they seem to be. They have bejen positively recognised by one of the articles in', amendment of the constitution, which .declares, that .“ 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"

*326.The government, then, of the United States, can claim no powers which are not granted to it by the constitution, and the powers actually granted, must be such as are expressly given, or given by necessary implication. On the other hand, this instrument, like every other grant, is to have a reasonable construction, according to the import of its terms ; and ryhere a power is expressly given in' general terms, it is not to be restrained to particular cases, unless that Construction grow out of the context expressly, or by necessary implication. The words are to be taken in their natural and obvious sense, and not in a sense unreasonably restricted or enlarged.

The constitution unavoidably deals in general language. It did not suit the purposes of the peo-r pie, in framing this great charter of our liberties, to provide for minute specifications of its powers, cr to declare the means by which those powers should be carried into execution. It was foreseen that this would bé a perilous and difficult, if not an impracticable, task. The instrument was not intended to provide merely for the exigencies of a few years, but was to endure through a long lapse of ages, the events of which were locked up in the inscrutable purposes of Providence. It could not be foreseen what new changes and modifications of power might be indispensable to effectuate the. general objects of the charter; and restrictions and specifications, which,-at the present, might seem salutary, might, in the end, prove the overthrow of the systern itself. Hence its powers are expressed in general terms, leaving to the legislature, , from time to *327time, to adopt its own means to effectuate legitimate objects, and to mould and model the exercise of its powers, as its own wisdom, arid the public interests, , • 3hould require. ■

With these principles in view,, principles in respect to which no difference of opinion ought to be indulged, let us now proceed to the interpretation of the constitution, so far as regards the great points in controversy.

The third article of the constitution is that which must principally attract our attention.. The 1st. section declares, “ the judicial power of thé United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such other inferior courts as the congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish.” The 2d section declares, that “ the judicial power shall extend to all cases in law or equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and the treaties made, or which shall, be made, under their authority; to all. cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to. all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more states; between a state and citizens of another state;' between citizens of different states; between citizens of the samé state, claiming lands under the grants of different states; and between a state or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens, or subjects.” It then proceeds to declare, that “in áll cáses affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction. *328In all the. other cases before mentioned the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law arid fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the congress shall make.”

Such is the language of the article-creating and defining the judicial power of the United States. It is the voice of the whole American people solemnly-declared, in establishing one great department of that government which was, in many respects, national, and in all, supreme It is. a part, of the very same instrument which \yas to act not merely upon individuals, but upon states; and to deprive them altogether of the exercise of some powers of sovereignty, and to restrain and regulate them in the exercise of others.

Let this, article be carefully weighed and considered. The language, of the article throughout is manifestly designed to be mandatory upon tlie legislature. Its obligatory force. is so imperative, that congress could not, without a violation of its duty, have refused to carry it into operation. The judicial power of the United States shall be vested (not may be vested) in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. . Could cqngress have lawfully refused to create a supreme court, or to vest in it the Constitutional jurisdiction ? “ The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive, for their services, a compensation which, shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.” Could congress create or limit any other tenure of *329the judicial office? Could they refuse to pay, at stated times, the stipulated salary, or diminish it. durins: the continuance in office ? But one answer can , • "t x- ' -x XT. • xii be given to these questions: it must be'in the negative. The. object of the constitution was to establish three great departments of government; the legislative, ,fhe executive, and the judicial departments.. The first was to pass, laws, the second to approve and execute them, and. the third to expound and enforce them. Without the latter,. it would be impossible to carry into, effect some of the express provisions of the constitution. How, otherwise* could crimes against the United States be tried and punished ? How could causes between two states be heard and determined? .The judicial power must,, therefore, be vested in some court* by congress': and to suppose that it w.as not .an obligation binding on them, but might, at their pleasure, be omited or declined, is to suppose thqt, under, the sanction .of the constitution, they might defeat the constitution itself; a construction which would lead to such a result cannot be sound.

The same expression, “ shall be vested,” occurs in other parts' of the constitution, in defining the powers of the other co-ordinate bránchcs of the government. The first article declares that. “ all legislative powers herein granted .s/mü be vested, in a congress of the United States.” Will it be contended that the legislative power is not absolutely vested? that the words merely refer to Some future act, and mean only that the legislative power may, hereafter be vested? The second article declares that “ the *330executive power shall be vested in a president of the United Síat'és of America.” Could congress vest it in any other person; or, is it to await' their good pleasure, whether it is to vest,at all? It is apparent ■that such a construction,, in either case, would be utterly inadmissible. ; Why, then, is it entitléd to a better support in reference to the judicial- department ?

If, then, it is a duty of congress to vest the judicial power of th'd United States, it is a duty to vest the whole judicial power. The language, if imperative as to one part, is imperative as to all. If it were otherwise, this anomaly would exist, that .congress might successively refuse to vest the jurisdiction in any one class .of cases enumerated in the constitution, arid thereby defeat the jurisdiction as to all; for the constitution has not singled out any 'class on which congress are bound to act in preference to others.

The next consideration is as to the courts, in which the judicial power shall be vested. It is manifest that a supreme court, must'' be established; but whether it be equally obligatory to establish inferior count's, is a question of some difficulty. If congress may lawfully omit to establish inferior courts, it might follow, that in some of the-enumerated' cáses the judicial power could nowhere exist. The supreme, court can have original jurisdiction in two classes of cases only, viz. in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and in cases in which a state is a party. . Congress cannot vest, any portion of the judicial power of the United States, except in courts ordained and established by *331itself; and if in any of the eases enumerated in the constitution, the state courts did not then possess jurisdiction, the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court (admitting that it could act op' state courts) could not reach those cases; and, consequently, the injunction of the, constitution, that the judicial power “ shall be vested” would be disobeyed. It would seem, therefore, to follow, that congress are bound to create some inferior courts, in which to vest all 'that jurisdiction which, under the constitution, is exclusively vested in the United States,, and of which the supreme epurt eánnot take original cognizance. They might establish one or more inferior courts; they might parcel out the jurisdiction among such courts, from time to time, at théir own pleasure. But the whole judicial power of the-United States should be, at all times, vested either in an original or appellate form, in some courts created under its authority.

This construction will be fortified by an attentive examination of the second section of the third article. The words are “ the judicial power shall extend”. &c. Much minute and elaborate criticism has been employed upon those words. It has been argued that they are equivalent to the words “ may extend,” and that “extend” means to widen to new cases not before within the scope of the power., For the reasons which have been already stated, we are of opinion that the words are used in an imperative sense. They import an, absolute . grant of judicial power. They cannot have a relative signification applicable to powers Already granted; for the American people *332had not made any previous'grant. The constitution was for a new government-, organized with new substantive powers,-and not a mere supplementary char-^er a g-ovemment already existinsf.. The confe0 J -a . ■ . deration was a compact between states; and its structure and powers were wholly unlike those of the Rational government. The constitution was 'an act of the" people of the United States to supercede the confederation, and not to be ingrafted on it, as a stock through which it was to receive life and nourishment.

If; indeed; the relative signification, could ,be fixed upon the term “ extend,” it could not (as we shall hereafter see) subserve the purposes of the argument insupport-of which it has been adduced. This imperative sense of the words “ shall extend,” is strengthened by the context. It is declared that “ in all cases- affecting ambassadors, &c., that the’supreme court shall have original jurisdiction.” Could congress -withhold original jurisdiction in these cases from the supreme court ? The clause proceeds — “ in all the other cases before mentioned the supreme court shall have appellate-jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulation^, as the-congress shall make.” The very exception jhere shows that the framers of the constitu.tion used the words in an imperative sense. What necessity could there'exist for this exception if the preceding words were not used in that sense ? Without such exception, congress would, by the preceding words, have possessed a complete power to regulate the appellate jurisdiction, if the language were. *333only equivalent to the words “ may have”1 appellate jurisdiction. It is apparent, then, that. the exception wasinterided as'&limitation upon the preceding words, to enable congress to regulate and restrain the 'appellate power, as'the public interests might, from, time to time, require..

Other clauses in the constitution might be brought in aid of this construction; but a minute examination, of them caniiot be necessary, and would oocupy too much time. It will, be found that whenever a particular object is to be’ effected, the language of the constitution is always imperative, and cannot be disregarded without violating the first principles óf pub-: lie dutyv On-the-other hand, the legislative powers are given in language which implies discretion, as from the nature of legislative power such a discretion must ever he exercised.

It being, then, established that the language of this clause is imperative, the next question is as to the cases to which it shall apply. The answer is found m the constitution itself. The judicial power shall extend to all the cases enumerated'in the constitution. As the mode is not limited, it may extend to all such cases, in any form, in which judicial power may be exercised. It may, therefore, extend to them in the shape of original or appellate jurisdiction, or both; for there is nothing in the nature of the -;ases which binds to the exercise of the one in preference to the other.

In what cases (if any) is this judicial power exclusive, or exclusive at the election of congress?" It will fee observed that there áre two classes of cases enu*334iterated in the constitution, between which a distiridtipn seems to be drawn. The first class includes cases arising Under the constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States; cases, affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and cases' of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. In this class the expression is, and that the' judicial power shall extend to all cases ) but in the subsequent part of the clause which embraces all the. other cases, of national cognizance, arid forms • the second class, the word “a//” is dropped seemingly ex-‘industria. Here;the judicial authority is to extend to controversies (not to all controversies) to which the United States shall be a party, &c. ' From this difference of phraseology, perhaps, a difference of constitutional intention may, with' propriety; be inferred. It is hardly to be presumed that the variation in the language could have been accidental. It must have been the rbsult of some determinate reason ; and it is not vpry difficult to find a reason sufficient to support the apparent change of intention. In respect to. the first class, it may well have been the intention of the framers of the constitution imperativély to extend the judicial poWer either in am original or appellate form to all cases; and in the latter class to leave it to congress to qualify the jurisdiction, original or appellate, in such manner as public policy might dictate.

The vital importance of all the cases enumerated in the first class fó the national sovereignty, might warrant such a distinction. In the first place, as to cases arriving under the constitution, láws, and treaties of the United States. - Here the state courts *335could not. ordinarily possess a direct jurisdiction. The jurisdiction over such cases could not exist in the state courts previous to the adoption óf the constitution, and it could not afterwards be directly'conferred on. them; for the constitution expressly requires the judicial power to be vested in courts ordained and established by the United States. This class of cases would embrace civil as W'ell as criminal jurisdiction, and affect not only our internal policy, but our ‘foreign- relations. It would, therefore, be perilous to restrain^ it in any manner whatsoever, inasmuch as it might hazard the national safety. Th’e same remarks may be urged as’to cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls* who are emphatically placed under the guardianship of the law of nationsand~as to cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, the admiralty jurisdiction embraces all questions of prize and salvage, in the correct adjudication of which foreign nations are deeply interested; it embraces also’maritime torts, contracts,'and offences, in which the pririciples of the law and comity of nations often form an essential inquiry. All these cases, then, enter into' the national policy, affect the national rights, and may compromit the national, sovereignty. The original or appellate jurisdiction ought not, therefore, to be restrained, but should be commensurate with the mischiefs intended to be remedied, and, of course, should extend to all cases whatsoever.

A different policy might weh be adopted in reference to the second class of cases ; for although it might be fit that the ju ■’icial power should extend *336to all controversies to which the United States should be a party* yet . this power m’ght not. have been imperatively given, least it should imply a right to take cognizance- of original suits brought against the- United .States ■ as. defendants in their own courts. It might not have been deemed.-proper to submit the sovereignty of the United States,-.against their-own will, to judicial, cognizance, either to enforce rights or to.prevent wrongs; and as to the other cases of the second class, they might well be left to be. exercised under the -exceptions and regulations which congress might, in their wisdom, choose to apply. |t is also worthy of remark, that congress seem, in a gpod. degree, in- the establishment of the present judicial system, to have adopted this distinction.. In the first class .of cases, the jurisdiction is. pot limited except by the subject matter; in the' second, it is made materially to depend upon the value in controversy.

We do not, however, profess’ to place -any implicit reliance upon the ' distinction which has here been stated- and endeavoured tube illustrated. It has the . rather been brought into view in deference to the legislative opinion, which has so long acted upon, and enforced, this distinction. But there, is, certainly, vast weight in the argument which has been urged, that the constitution is. imperative upon congress to vest all the judicial power of the United States, in the shape of original jurisdiction, in the supreme and inferior courts created under, its. own authority. At all events, whether the one construction or the other prevail, it is-manifest that the judicial power of the *337United States is- unavoidably, in some cases, exclusive of all state authority,,and in all others, may be made so at the election of congress. Np part of the criminal jurisdiction of the United States can, consistently with the constitution, be delegated to state tribunals: The admiralty and maritime jurisdiction is of the same exclusive cognizance; and it pan only be in those cases Where, previous to the constitution, state , tribunals possessed jurisdiction independent of national authority, that they can now constitutionally exercise a concurrent jurisdiction'. Congress, throughout the judicial act, and particularly in the 9th, 11th, and. 13th sections, have legislated upon the suppositión that in all. the cases to which the judicial powers of the United States extended, they might rightfully yest exclusive jurisdiction in their own courts.

But, even admitting that the language of the constitution is not mandatory, and that congress may constitutionally omit to vest the judicial power in courts of the United- States, it cannot be denied that when it is vested, it may be exercised to the utmost constitutional extent..

This leads us to the consideration of the great question as to the nature and extsnt of tne appellate jurisdiction of the United States. We have already seen that appellate jurisdiction is given by the constitution to the supreme court in all cases where it has not original jurisdiction; -subject, however, to such exceptions and regulations as congress may prescribe; It is, therefore, capable of embracing every case enumerated in the constitution, which is not exclusively to be decided by way of original *338jurisdiction. But the exercise bf appellate jurisdiction is far from being limited by the-terms of the constitution to the supreme cóurt. There can, be no doubt that congress may create a.succession of inferior tribunals, in each of which it may vest appellate as well as original jurisdiction. The judicial ppWer is delegated by the constitution in the. most gperaerAl terms, and may, therefore, bé .exercised by congress under every'variety of form*, of appellate Or original jurisdiction. And as there is nothing in the constitution which restrains or limits this power, it must, therefore, in all other cases, subsist in the utmost latitude of which, in its own nature, His susceptible.

As,' then, by the terras of- the constitution, the appellate jurisdiction is not. limited as to the supreme cbúrt, and as to this court it may be exercised in all other cases than those of which it has original cognizance, 'what is there to restrain its exercise over state tribunals in the enumerated cases ? The appellate power is . not limited- by the terms of the third article to any particular Courts. The words are, “ the judicial power (which includes appellate power) shall extendió all cases" &c., and “ in all other cases befóte mentioned the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction.”. It is the case, then, and not the Court, that gives the jurisdiction. If the judicial power extends to the ease, it will be in vain to search in the letter of the constitution for any qualification as to the tribunal where it depends. It is incumbent^ then, upon those, who assert such a qualification to show its existence by necessary implication. , If the *339text be. clear and distinct, no restriction upon its plain and obvious import ought to be admitted, unless the inference be irresistible.

If the constitution meant to limit the appellate jurisdiction to cases pending in the courts of the United States,, it would necessarily follow that the jurisdiction, of these courts would, in . all the cases enumerated in the constitution, be exclusive of state tribunals. How otherwise,couid.the. jurisdiction extend to all cases arising under the constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States, or to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction ?. If some of these cases might be entertained by state tribunals, and no appellate jurisdiction as to them should exist, then the appellate power would not extend to all, but to some, cases. If state tribunals might exercise, concurrent jurisdiction over all or some of the other classes of cases in the constitution without control, then the appellate jurisdiction of the United States might, as to such cases, have.no real existence, contrary to the manifest intent of the constitution. Under such circumstances, to give effect to. the judicial power, it must be construed to be exclusive; and this not only when the casus foederis should arise directly, but when it should arise, incidentally, in cases pending in state courts. This construction would abridge the jurisdiction of such court, far more than has been ever contemplated in any act of congress.

On the other hand, if, as has been contended, a discretion be vested in congress to establish, or not to establish, inferior courts at their own pleasure, and *340congress should" riot establish such courts, the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court would have nothing to act upqn, uhless it could aoi upon cases pending in the state courts. Under such circumstances it must be held that the appellate power would extend to state courts; for the constitution is peremptory that it shall extend to cértain enumera-; ted cases, which cases could exist in no other courts, Any other construction, Upon this supposition, would involve this strange contradiction, that a discretionary power vested in congress, and which they might rightfully omit to exercise, would defeat the absolute injunctions of the constitution in relation to thé whole appellate powér..

But it is plain that the framers of the constitution did contemplate that cases within the judicial cognizance of the United States not only might but would arise in the state courts, in the exercise of their ordinary jurisdiction, With this view the sixth article - declares, that “ this constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and,all treaties made, Or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States* shall be the supreme law. of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” It is obvious that this obligation is imperative upon the state judges in their official, and not merely in their private, capacities. From the very nature of their judicial duties they would be called upon to pronounce the law applicable to the case in judgment, They were not to decide merely *341according to the laws or constitution of the state, but according to the- constitution, laws and treaties of the United States — “ the supreme law of the land.”.

:A moment’s consideration will show us the' necessity and propriety of tipis provision in eases where the jurisdiction of thé state courts is unquestionable. Suppose a contract for the payment of money is made' between citizens of the same state, and performance thereof is sought, in the courts of that state; no person can doubt that the jurisdiction completely and exclusively attaches,, in the'first instance, to such courts. Suppose at the trial the defendant sets up in his, defence a tender under a state law, making paper money a good tender, or a state law, impairing, the obligation pf such contract, whieh law, if binding, would defeat the suit. The constitution of the United States has declared that no state shall make any thing but,gold or' silver coin a tender in payment of debts, or pass a law impairing the obligation of contracts. If congress shall not have passed a law providing for the removal of such a,suit to the courts of the United States, must not the state court proceed tp hear and determine it ? Can a mere plea in defence be of itself a bar to further proceedings, so as to prohibit an inquiry into its truth or legal propriety, when no other tribunal exists to whom judicial cognizance of such cases is confided ? Suppose an indictment for a crime in a state court, and the defendant should allege in his defence that the crime was created by an ex post facto apt of the state, must not’ the state court, in the exercise of a jurisdiction which has already rightfully attached, have a *342right to pronounce oh the'validity and sufficiency of the defence? It would be extremely difficult, upon any legal principles, to give a negative answer to these inquiries. Innumerable instances of the same Sort might be stated, in illustration of the position; and unless the state courts could sustain jurisdiction in such cases, this cláusé of the - sixth article would he without meaning or effect:, and public mischiefs, of a most enormous magnitude, would inevitably ensue.

It> must, therefore, be conceded that the constitution not only contemplated, but meant tb provide for cases within the scope of the judicial power of the United States, which might yet depend before state tribunals. It was foreseen that in the exercise of their ordinary jurisdiction, state courts would incidentally take cognizance of cases arising under the constitution, the laws, and treaties of the United States. Yet to all these cases the judicial power, by the very, terms of the constitution, is to extend. It cannot extend by original jurisdiction if that was already rightfully and exclusively attached in the state courts, which (as has been already shown) may occur; it must, therefore, extend by appellate jurisdiction,, or not at all. It would seem to follow that the appellate power of the United States must, in such cases, extend to,state tribunals; and if in such Cases, there is no reason why it should not equally attach upon all others within the purview of the constitution.

It has been argued that such an appellate jurisdiction over state courts is inconsistent with the genius *343of our governments* and the Spirit of the constitutions That the latter was never desjgned to act upon state sovereignties, but only -upon the people, and that if the: power exists, it will materially impair the., sovereignty of the states, and the independence Of their courts. We cannot yield to the force of this region* ingj it assumes.principles which we cannot admit, and draws conclusions to which we do not yield out* assent.

It is a mistake thatrthe constitution was not designed to operate upon states, in. their corporate capacities. ' It is crowded with provisions which restrain of annul the sovereignty of the states in some of the highest branches of their prerogatives. The tenth section of. the first article contains a long list, of disabilities and prohibitions imposed upon the states. Surely, when such essential, portions of state sovereignty are taken away, or prohibited to be ex,ercised, it cannpt.be correctly asserted that the constitution does not act upon the states. 'Ihe language of the constitution is also imperative upon thg states as to the performance of many duties. It is imperative upon the state legislatures to make laws prescribing the time, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, and for electors of president and vice-president. And in these, as well as some other cases, congress have, a right to revise, amend, or supercede the laws which may be passed by state legislatures.- When, therefore, the states , are stripped of some of the highest attributes óf sovereignty, and the same are given to the United States; when the legislatures'of the states are, in some *344respects, under the control of congress, and in every case are, under the constitution, bound by the paramount authority of the United States; it is certainly difficult to support the argument that the appellate poWer over the decisions of state courts is contrary to the genius of our institutions. The courts of the United States can, without question, revise the proceedings of the executive and legislative authorities of the states, and if they are found to be contrary to the constitution, may declare them to be of ho legal validity. Surely the exercise of the same right over ju< icial tribunals is not a higher or more dangerous act of sovereign power.

Nor can such a right be deemed to impair the- independence of state judges. It is assuming the very ground in controversy to assert that they possess an absolute independence of the United States. In respect to the powers granted to the United States-, they are not independent; they are 'expressly bound to obedience by the letter of the constitution; and if they should unintentionally transcend their authority, or misconstrue the constitution, there is no more reason for giving their judgments an absolute and irresistible force, than for giving it to the acts of the . other co-ordinate departments of state sovereignty.

The argument urged from the possibility of the abuse of the revising power, is equally unsatisfactory. It is always a doubtful course, to argue against the use or existence of a power, from the possibility of its abuse. It is still more difficult, by such, an argument, to ingraft upon a general power a restric*345tion which.is not to be found in the terms in which it is given. From the very nature of things, the absolute' fight of decision, in the last resort* must , , '. . i • • rest somewhere^ — wherever it may be vested it is susceptible of abuse. In all questions of jurisdiction the inferior, or appéllate court, must pronounce the final judgment; and common sense, as well as legal reasoning, has conferred it upon the latter.

It has been further argued against the.existence of -this appellate power, that it would form a novelty in our judicial institutions. This is certainly a mistake. In the articles of confederation, an instrument framed with infinitely more deference, to state rights and state jealousies, a power was given to congress to establish “ courts for revising and determining, finally, appeals in all cases, of captures.” It is remarkable, that no power was given to entertain original jurisdiction in such cases; and, consequently, the appellate power (although not so expressed in terms) was altogether to be exercised in revising the decisions of state tribunals. This was, undoubtedly, so far a surrender of státe sovereignty.; but it never was supposed to be a power fraught with public danger, or destructive of the independence of state judges. On the contrary, it was .supposed to be a power indispensable to the public safety, inasmuch, as pur national rights might otherwise be compromitted, and our national peace been dángered. Under the present constitution the prize jurisdiction is confined to the courts of the United States; and a power to revise the decisions-of state courts, if they should .assert jurisdiction over prize causes, cannot be lesa *346important, or less useful; than it was under the confederation.

In this connexion we are led again to the construe- ^ tion of the words of tile constitution, the judicial power shall extend,” &c. If, as has been contended at the bar, the term “ extend” have ¿ relative signification, and mean to widen an existing power, it will then follow, that, as the confederation gave-an appellate power over state tribunals, the constitution enlarged or widened that appellate power 10 all the other cases in which jurisdiction is .given to the courts of the United States. It is not.presumed that the Íearnéd counsel would ehtioSe to adopt such a Conclusion.

It is further argued, that rió great, public mischief can result from a construction which shall limit the appellate' power of the United States to cases in their own courts: first,’ because state 'judges are bound by ari oathuto support the constitution of the United States, arid must be presumed to be riien of learning and integrity <; and, sécondly, because congress must have an unquestionable right to remove all cases within fhe scope of the judicial power from the state .courts tp the courts of the United States, at any time before final judgment,' though not after final judgment. As to the first’ reason^admitting •that the judges of the. state courts are, arid always will be, of as iriuch learning, integrity, and wisdom, as those of the courts of the United States, {which we very cheerfully admit,) it does not aid the argument. It is manifest that the constitution has proceedéd upon a theory of its'own, and given or with*347held powers according to the judgment of the American people, by whom it was adopted. We can 1 r . J 1 * . only construe its powers,' and cannot inquire mto the policy or principles which induced the grant of them. The constitution has presumed (whether rightly, or wrongly we do . not inquire) .that state attachments, state prejudices, state.-jealousies^ and state interests, might, some times obstruct, or control, or be supposed to obstruct or control, the regular administration of justice. . Hence, in controversies between states; between citizens of different states; between citizens claiming grants under different-states;. between a state aiid its citizens, * or foreigners, and between citizens and foreigners, it enables the parties, under the authority of congress, to have the controversies heard, tried, and determined before the national tribunals. - No other reason than that which has been stated can be assigned, why some, at least, of those cases should not have been left to the cognizance of the state courts. In respect to.the other enumerated cases — -the cases arising under the constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States, cases affecting ambassadors and other public. ministers, and cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction — Reasons of a higher and more extensive nature, touching the safety, peace, and sovereignty of the. nation, might well justify a grant of exclusive jurisdiction.

This is not all. A motive of another kind,. perfectly compatible with the most sincere respect for state tribunals, might induce the grant of appellate power over their decisions. . That motive is the importance, .and even necessity of uniformity óf deci*348sions throughout the whole United States, Upon all subjects within the purview of the constitution. Judges of equal learning and integrity* in different states, might differently interpret a statute, or a treaty of the United States, or even the constitution itself: If there were no revising authority to control these jarring and discordant judgments, and harmonize them into uniformity, the laws, the. treaties, and the constitution of.the United States would he different in different states, and might, perhaps, nevér liave precisely thé samé construction* obligation, or eifibacy, in any two states. The public mischiefs that would attend such a state of things would be truly deplorable; and it cannot be believed that they could have escaped the enlightened convention which formed the constitution. What, iftdeed, might then have been only prophecy, has, now become fact; and the appellate jurisdiction must continue to be the only adéquate .remedy fob such evils.

There is an additional consideration, which is entitled to great weight. The-constitution of the United States was designed for the .common and equal benefit of all the peopíé of the United States. The judicial power was granted for the same benign and salutary purposes. It was not to be-exercised ex* clusivély for t]ie benefit, of parties who might be •plaintiffs, and would elect tlje national forum, bui also for the- protection of defendants who might be entitled to try their rights, or assert, their priviliges, before the same forum.- Yet, if the construction contended for be correct, it will follovy, that as the plaintiff may always elect the state court,- the de*349fendant may be deprived of all the security which the constitution intended in aid of his rights. Such a state of things can, iñ no respect, be considered as giving' equal rights. To obviate this difficulty, we are referred, to the power which it is admitted congress possess to remove suits from state courts to the national courts; arid this forms the second ground upon which the. argument we are considering has been attempted to be sustained.

. This power of removal is not to be found in express terms in any part of the constitution; if it.be given, it is'only given by implication, as a power necessary and proper to carry into effect some express power. The power of removal is certainly not, in strictness of language; it presupposes an exercise of original jurisdiction to have attached elsewhere. The' existence of this power of removal is familiar incourts acting according to the course of the common law in criminal as well as civil cases, and it is exercised before as well as after judgment. • But this is always deemed in both casés an exercise of appellate, and not of original jurisdiction. If, then, the right of removal be included in the appellate jurisdiction, it is only because it is one mode of exercising'that power, and as congress is not limited by the Constitution? to any particular >mode, or time of exercising it,, it may authorize a removal, either before or after judgment. The time^ the process, and the manner, must be subject to its absolute legislative control: A writ of error is, indeed, but a process • which removes the record of.one court to the possession of another court, *350and enables the latter to inspect the proceedings, and give such judgment as its own opinion, pf the law and justice of the case may warrant. There is nothing in the nature of the process which forbids.it froni being applied' by the legislature to interlocutory as well as final judgments. And if the right of removal from state courts exist before judgment, because it is included in . the. appellate power, it'must, for the same reason, exist after judgment. ■ And if the appellate power by the constitution does not include cases pending in state courts, the right of removal, Which is but a'mode of exercising thát powrer, canndt be applied.to them. Precisely the same objections, therefore, exist as to the rigut of removal before judgment, as after, and both must stand or fall together. Noir, indeed, would the. force of the arguments on either side materially vary, if the right' of removal were an exercise, of original jurisdiction. • It would equally ■ trench upon , the jurisdiction and independence of state tribunals;

The remedy, too, of removal of suits would be utterly inadequate.to the purposes of the constitution,, if it could act* only on the parties, and,not upon the state courts. In respect to criminal prosecutions, the difficulty.seems, admitted to be insurmountable5 and, in respect to civil suits, there would, in many cases, be rights without corresponding remedies. If -state courts should deny the constitutionality of the authority to remove suits from their, cognizance, in what, manner could they be compelled to relinquish the jurisdiction ? In respect to criminal cases, there would at once he an énd of all control, and the *351state decisions would be paramount to the constitution ; and though in civil sdits the courts of the United States might act upon the parties, yet the state courts might act in the áame way.; and this conflict of jurisdictions would not only jeopardise private rights, but bring into imminent peril the public interests.

On the whole, the court are of opinion, that the appellate power of the United States does extend to cases pending in the state courts; and that the 25th section of the judiciary act, which authorizes the :exercise of this jurisdiction in,the specified cases, by a writ of error, is supported by the letter and spirit of the constitution. We find no: clause.' in that instrument which limits this power; and we dare not interpose a limitation where the people have not been disposed to create one.

Strong as this conclusion stands upon the general language of the constitution, it may still derive support from other sources. It is an historical fact, that this exposition of the constitution, ■ extending its ap~ pel late power to state courts, was, previous to its adoption, uniformly and publicly, avowed b) its friends, and admitted by its enemies, as the basis of their respective reasonings, both in ánd out of the state conventions. It is • an historical fact, that at the time when the judiciary act was submitted te> the deliberation's of the first congress, composed,, as- if was, not only of men of great learning and. ability, but of men who had acted a principal part in framing, supporting, or opposing that constitution, the same exposition was explicitly declared and admitted by the friends and by the opponents of that system. It *352is an historical fact,' that the supreme court of the United States have, from time to time, sustained this appellate jurisdiction in a great variety of cases, brought from the tribunals of many of the most important states in the union, and. that no state tribunal has ever breathed á judicial' doubt on the subject, or declined tq obey the mandate of the supreme court, until .the present occasion. -This weight of contemporaneous exposition by all parties, this acquiescence of enlightened state courts, and these judicial decisions of the supreme court through so long a period, do, as we think, place the doctrine upon a foundation of authority which cannot be shaken, without delivering over the subject to. perpetual and irremediable doubts.

The next' question which has been argued, is, whether the case at bar be within the purview of the 25th section of the judiciary act, so that this court may rightfully sustain the present writ of error. This section, stripped of. passages Unimportant in this inquiry, enacts, in substance, that a final judgment or decree in any suit in the highest court of law or equity of a state, where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority excised under, the United States, and the decision is against their validity; or' where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under, any state, on the ground of their being repugnant to the constitution, treaties, or laws, of the United States, and the decision is in favour of such their validity; or of the constitution, or of a treaty or statute of, or commission held under, the United *353States, and the decision is against the title, right, privilege,or exemption, specially set up or claimed by either'party under such clause of the said constitution, treaty, statute, or commission, may be re-examinéd and reversed or affirmed in the supreme court of the United States, upon a writ of error, in the same manner, and under the same regulations, and the writ shall have the same effect, as if 0ie judgment or .decree complained of had been rendered or passed in a circuit court, and the proceeding upon the reversal shall also be the same, except that the. supreme court, instead of remanding the cause for a final decision, as before provided, may, at their discretion, if the cause shall have been, once remanded before, proceed to a fined decision of t]ie same, and award execution. But no other error ,shall' be assigned or regarded as a ground of reversal in any such cáse as aforesaid, than such.as appears upon the face of the record, and immediately respects the before-mentioned question- of validity - or construction of the said constitution, treaties, statutes, commissions, or authorities in dispute.

That the present Writ of error is founded upon a judgment of the court below, which drew in question and denied the validity of a statute of the United States, is incontrovertible, for it is apparent upon the face of,the record; That this judgment is final upon, the rights of the parties is equally true; for if well founded, the former judgment pf that court was of conclusive authority, and the former judgment of.this court utterly void. - The decision was, therefore, equivalent'to a perpetual stay of proceedings upon *354the mandate, and a perpetual denial of all the. rights acquired under it. The case, then, falls directly "within the terms of the act. It is a final judgment in a suit in a.'state court, denying the validity of a statute, of the United States; and unless a distinction cán be made. between proceedings under a mandate, and proceedings in an original suit, a writ of error is? the proper, remedy to revise that judgement. In our opinion no legal distinction exists between the cases. .

In causes remanded to the circuit courts, if the mandate be not correctly executed, a writ of error or appeal has always.been supposed to be a proper remedy, and has been recognized as such, in the former decisions of this court. The statute gives the same effect to writs'of error from the judgments of state courts as of the circuit courts; and in its terms provides for proceedings where the same cause may be a second time brought up on writ of error before the supreme court. There is no limitation or description of the cases to which the second writ of error may be applied; and it ought, therefore, to be coextensive with the cases which fall within the .mischiefs of the Statute, It .will hardly be denied that this, cause stands in. that predicament; and if so, then the appellate jurisdiction of this court has rightfully attached.

But it is contended, that the former judgment of this coutt was rendered upon a case not within the purview of this section ol the judicial act, and that as it was pronounced by an incompetent jurisdiction, it tvas utterly roid, and cannot be a sufficient founds*355tion to sustain any subsequent proceedings. To this argument several answers may be given. In the first place, it is not admitted that, upon this writ of error, the former record is before us, The error now assigned is not in the former proceedings, but in the judgment rendered upon the -mándate issued after the former judgment. The question now litigated is not upon the construction of a treaty, but upon the . constitutionality of a statute of the . United States, which is clearly within our jurisdiction. In the next place, in ordinary cases a second, writ of error has never been supposed to draw in question the propriety of the first judgment, and it is difficult to perceive-how such a proceeeding could be sustainéd upon principle. A final judgment of this court is supposed to be conclusive upon the rights which it decides, and no. statute has provided any process by which this court can revise its own .judgments. In several cases which have been former’y adjudged in this court, the same point was argued by counsel, and expressly overruled. It was solemnly held that'a final judgment of this court was conclusive upon the parties, and could not be re-examined.

In this case, however, from motives of a public nature, we are entirely willing to wave all objections,- and to go back and re-examine the question of jurisdiction as it stood upon the record formerly in judgment. We have great confidence that our jurisdiction will, on a careful examination, stand confirmed as well upon principle as authority. If will be recollected that the action was an ejectment for a parcel of land in the Northern Neck, formerly belonging to *356Lord Fairfax. The original plaintiff claimed the-land under a patent granted to him by the state of Virginia, in 1789, under a title supposed to be vested in that state by escheat or forfeiture. The original defendant claimed the land as devisee under the will of Lord Fairfax. The parties agreed to a special statement of facts in- the nature of a special verdict, «pon which the district' court of Winchester, in 1793, gave p general judgment for the defendant, which judgment was afterwards reversed in 1810, by the court of- appeals, and ,a general judgment was rendered for the plaintiff; and from this last judgment a writ of error was brought to . the supreme court. The statement of facts contained a regular deduction of the title'of Lord Fairfax until his death, in 1781,, and alsp the title of his. devisee, it also contained a regular deduction of the tide of the plaintiff, under the state of Virginia, and further referred to the treaty of. peace of 1783, and to the acts of Virginia respecting the lands of Lord Faixfax, and the supposed, escheat or forfeiture thereof, as component parts of the. case.. No facts disconnected with the titles thus set úo by the parties were alleged-on either side, ■ It is apparent, from this summary explanation, that the title thus set up by the plaintiff might be open to other objections ; but the title of the defendant' was perfect and complete, if it was protectéd by the treaty of 1783. If, therefore, this court had authority to examine into the, whole record; and to decide upon the legal validity of the title of the defendant, as well as its application to the tre'aty ©f peace, it would be q case within the express pur*357view of the 2,5th section of the act; .for there was nothing in the record upon which the court below could have decided but qpon the title as connected with the treaty; and if the title was otherwise good, its sufficiency must have depended altogether upon its protection under the treaty. ’ Under such circumstances it was strictly a suit where was drawn in question the construction of a treaty,-and the decision was against the title specially set up or'claimed by. the 'defendant.. It would fall, then, within the very terms of the act.

The objection urged at the bar is, that this- court cannot inquire into the title, but-simply into the correctness of the construction.put upon the treaty by the court of appeals; and that their judgment is not re-examinable Lert, unless it appear on- the face- of the record that some construction was put upon the treaty. If, therefore, that court might. hav,e decided the case upon the invalidity of the, title, (and, non ■constat, that they did not,) independent of the treaty, there is an end of the appellate jurisdiction of this court. In support of this objection much stress is laid upon the last clause of the section, ■ which declares, that no other cause shall he regarded as a ground of reversal than such as- appears on the face of the record and immediately respects the construction of the treaty, &c., in dispute.

If this be the true construction of the section, it will be wholly inadequate for the purposes wThich it professes to have in view, and may be evaded at pleasure. But wc see no reason for adopting this harroiv construction; and there are the strongest *358reasons against it, founded upon the words as .well as the intent of the legislature. What is’the case for which the body of the section provides a remedy hf writ of error ? The answer must be in the words of the. section, a suit where is .drawn in question the construction of a treaty, and the decision is against the title set up by the party. It is, therefore, the decision against tire title set up with reference to the treaty, aiid not the mere abstract' construction of the treaty itself, upon Which the statute intends to found the appellate jurisdiction. How, indeed, can it be possible to decide whether a title be within the protection of a treaty, until it is ascertained' what that title is, and whether it have a legal validity ? From the very necessity of the casé, there must be a preliminary inquiry into the existence and structure of the title, before the court can construe the treaty in reference to that title. If the court below should decide, that the title was bad, and,- therefore, not protected by the treaty, must not this' court have a power to decide the title to be good, and, therefore, protected by the. treaty ? Is not the treaty, in both instances, equally construed, arid the title of the party, in reference to the,treaty, equally ascertained and decided ? . Nor does the clause relied on in the objection, impugn this construction. It requires, that the error upon which the appellate court is to decide, shall appear on the face of the record, and immediately respect-' the questions before mentioned ia the section. One of the questions is as to the construction of a treaty upon a title specially set up by a party, and every error that immediately respects *359that question, must, of course, be within the cognisanee, of the court. The title set ud in this case is apparent upon the face of the record, and immediately ;respects the decision of that question;, any error, therefore, in respect to that title must be re-examinable, or the case could never be presentéd to the court.

The restraining clause was manifestly intended for a very different purpose. It was foreseen that the parties might claim-under various titles, and might assert various defences, altogether independent of each other. The court might admit or reject evidence .applicable to one particular title, and not to all, and in such cases it was the intention of congress, to limit what .would otherwise have unquestionably attached to the court, the right of revising all the-points involved in the cause. It therefore restrains this, right to such errors as respect the* questions specified in the. section; and in this view, it has an appropriate sense, consistent with the preceding clauses. We are, therefore, satisfied, that, upon principle, the case was rightfully before us, and if the point were perfectly new, we should not hesitate to assert the jurisdiction.

But the point has been already decided by this court upon solemn argument. In Smith v. The State of Maryland, (6 Cranch, 286.,) precisely the same objection was taken by counsel, and. overruled by the unanimous opinion of the court. That case was, in some respects, stronger than the present; for the court below decided, expressly, that the party had no title, and, therefore, the treaty could not operate *360upon it. This court entered into an examination of that question-, and being of ithe same opinion, affirmed the judgment. There cannot, then, be an authority which could more completely govern the present question.

It has been asserted at the bar.that, in point of fact, the court of appeals did not decide either upon the treaty or the title apparent upon the record, but upon .a compromise made under an act of the legislature of Virginia. If it be true (as we are informed) that this was « private act, ter take effect only upon a certain condition, viz. thé execution of a deed of release of certain lands, which was matter in pais, it is somewhat difficult to understand ;how the .court could take judicial cognizance oftheact, or of the performance of the condition, unless-spread upon the record. At all events, we are bound to consider that the court did decide upon the facts actually before them. The treaty of peace was not necessary to have beén stated, for it was the supreme law of the land, of which, all courts must take notice. And at the time of thb decision in the court of appeals and in this court, another treaty had intervened, which attached itself to the title in controversy, and, of course, must have been the supreme law to govern the decision, if it. should be found applicable to the case. It was in this view that this court did not deem it necessary to r^st its former decision upon the treaty of peace, believing that the title of the defendant was, at all events, perfect ugder the treaty , of 1794.

*361The remaining questions' respect more the practice than the principles of this court. The forms of process, and the modes of proceeding in the exercise of jurisdiction aré, with few exceptions; left .by the legislature to be regulated and changed as this court may, in its discretion, deem expedient. . By a rule of this court, the" return of a copy of a record of the proper court, under the seal of that court, annexed to the writ of error, is declared to be “ a sufficient compliance with the mandate of the writ.” The record, in this case, is duly certified by the clerk of the court of appeals, and annexed to the writ of error. The objection, therefore, which has been urged to the sufficiency of the return, cannot prevail.

Another objection is, that it does not' appear that the judge who granted' the writ of error did, upon issuing the citation, take the bond required by the 22d section of the judiciary act.

We consider that provision as merely directory to the judge; and that an omission does riot avoid the writ of error, If any party be prejudiced by the omission, this court can grant him summary relief, by imposing such terms on the other party as, under all the circumstances, may be legal and proper. But there is nothing in the record by whiph we can judicially know whether a bond has been taken or not; for the statute does not require the bond to be returned to this court, and it might, with equal propriety, be lodged in the court below, who would ordinarily execute the judgment to be rendered on the writ. And the presumption of Jaw is, until the con*362•trary appears, that every judge who signs a citation has obeyed the injunctions of the act.

We have thus gone over all .the ’principal questions in the cause, arid we'deliver oin* judgment with entire confidence, that it is consistent with the constitution and laws of the land.

We have not thought.it incumbent on us to give any opinion upon the question, whether this court have authority to issue a writ of .mandapius to'the court of appeals to enforce 'the former judgments, as we do not think itnecessarily involved in the decision of this cause.

It is the opinion, of the whole, court, that the judgT ment of the court of appeals of Virginia, rendered on the mandate in this cause; be révérsed, and the judgment o' the district court, held at Winchester, be, and the. same is hereby affirmed.

Johnson,. J. It- will be observed in this case, that .the óourt disavows all intention to decide on the right'to issue, compulsory process to the state courts; thus leaving us, in my opinion, where the constituition arid laws place us — supreme over persons and cases as far as,our judicial powers extend, but not ¡asserting any compulsory control over the state tribunals.

In this view I acquiesce in their opinion, but not altogether in the reasoning, or opinion, of my brother who delivered it. New minds are accustomed to the same habit of thinking, and our conclusions are most satisfactory to ourselves when arrived at in. pur own way.

*3631 have another reason for expressing my opinion on this occasion. I view this question as one of the most momentous importance; as one which may af- • c .l feet, m its consequences, the permanence or the American union. It presents an instance of collision between the judicial powers pf the union, and one of the greatest states in the union, on a point the most delicate and difficult to be adjusted, On the one hand, the general government must cease to exist whenever it loses the power of protecting itself in the exercise of its constitutional powers. Force, which acts upon the physical powers of man,, or judicial process, which addresses itself to his moral principles or his fears, are the only means to which governments can resort in the exéfcise of their authority. The former is happily unknown to the genius of our constitution, except as far as it shall, be sanctioned by the latter; but let the latter be obstructed in its progress by .an-opposition which it cannot overcome or put ,by,, and the resort must be to the former, or government is no more.

On the other hand, so firmly am I persuaded, that the American people can no longer enjoy the blessings of a free goveraraeiit, whenever- the state sovereignties shall be prostrated at the feet of the general government, nor the proud consciousness . of equality and security, -any longer than the independence of judicial power» snail be. maintained consecrated and intangible, that, I could borrow the language of a celebrated orator, and exclaim, “ I rejoice that Virginia has resisted.”

Yet here l must claim the privilege of expressing *364my regret, that the opposition of the high and truly respected tribunal of that state had not been marked with .a little more moderation. The only point necessary, to be decided in the case then before then! was, “ whether they were bound to obey the mandate emanating from this court?” But in the judgment entered on their minutes, they have affirmed that the case was, in this court, coram nonjudice, or, in other words, that this court had not jurisdiction over it.

This is assuming a truly alarming, latitude of judicial power. Where is it to end ? It,is an acknowledged principle of, I believe, -every court in the world, that not only the decisions, but every thing done under the judicial process of courts, not having jurisdiction, are, ipso facto, void^ Are, then, the judgments of this court to be reviewed in every court of the union ? and is every recovery of money, every change of property, that has taken place under our process, to be considered as null, void, and tortious?

We pretend not to more infallibility than other courts composed of the same frail materials which compose this. It -would be the height of affectation to close our minds upon the recollection that we have been extracted from the same seminaries in ■which originated the learned men who preside over the state tribunals. But there is one claim which we can with confidence assert in our own name' upon those tribunals — the profound, uniform, and unaffected respect which this court has always exhibited for state decisions, give us strong pretensions to judicial comity. And another claim I may assert, in the name of the American people', in this court, every state in *365tlie union is represented; we are constituted by the voice of the union, and when decisions take place, which nothing but a spirit to give grpund and harmonize can. .reconcile, ours is the syperor claim upon the comity of the state tribunals. ' It is tbe nature of. the human mind to press a favourite , hypothesis too tar, but magnanimity will always be ready to sacrifiee'the pride of opinion to public welfare.

In the case befpre us, the collision has been, on our part, wholly unsolicited. The exercise of this appellate jurisdiction over the state decisions has long been acquiesced in, and when the writ of error, in this case, 'wps allowed by the president of the court of appeals of Virginia, vVe were sanctioned in supposing that we were to meet with' the ,sanie acquiescence there. Had that court refused to grant the writ in .the .first instance, or had the question'of jurisdiction, or oh the mode, of exercising, jurisdiction, been made here originally, wp should have been put .on our guard, and might have so modelled the process of the court-as to. strip it of the offensive- form of a mandate. In this case it might have been brought down to what probably the 25th section of the judiciary • act meayt it should be, to wit, an alternative judgment, either that the state court may finally proceed, at its option, to carry into effect the judgment of this court, or, if it declined doing so,, that then this court would proceed itself <to execute it. The language, sense, and operation of the 25th section on tljis subject, merit particular attention. In the preceding section, which has relation to causes brought up by writ of error from the circuit courts *366of the United States, this court is instructed not to issue executions, but to send a special mandate to .... , .r . T the circuit court to award executipn thereupon, in case of the circuit court’s refusal to obey such man-' date, there could be no doubt as to the ulterior measures; compulsory process might, unquestionably, be resorted to. Nor, indeed, was there any reason to. suppose that they ever would refuse; and, therefore, there is no provision made.for authorizing this court to exécute its own judgment in cases of that description. But not so, in eases brought up from the state courts; the framers of that law plainly foresaw1 that the state courts might refuse ;v and not being willing to leave ground for the implication, that compulsory process must be resorted to, because no - specific provision was made, they have provided the means, by authorizing this court, in case , of reversal of the state decision, to execute its own judgment.. In case óf reversal only was this necessary; for, in case of affirmance, this collision could' not arise. It is true, that the. words of this section are,' that this court may,. in their discretion, proceed to execute its own judgment. But these Words were very properly put in, that it might not be made imperative upon this' court to proceed indiscriminately in this Way: as it could only be necessary in case of the refusal of the state courts; and this idea is fully confirmed by the words of the 13th section, which restrict this court in issuing the writ of mandamus, so as to confine it expressly to those courts which are constituted by the United States,

*367In’ this point of view the legislature is completely vindicated from all intention to violate the ..dependence of the state judiciaries. Nor can this court, with any more correctness, have imputed to it similar intentions. The form of the mándate issued, in this case is that known to appellate tribunals, and used in the ordinary cases of writs of error from the courts of the United States. It will, perhaps, not be too much, in such cases, to expect of those who are conversant in the forms, fictions, and technicality of the law, not to give the process of courts too .iteral a construction. They should be considered with a view to the ends they, are intended to answer, and the lavff and practice in which they originate. In this view, the mandate was no more than a mode «of submitting to that court the option which the 25th section. holds out to them.

Had the decision of the court of Virginia been confined to the point of their legal obligation to carry the judgment of this court into effect, I should have thought it unnecessary to make any further observations in this cáuse. But we are called upon to vindicate our general revising power, and its due exercise in this particular case..

Here, that I may not be charged with arguing upon a hypothetical case,, it is necessary to ascertain what the real question is which this court is now called to decide on.'.

In doing this, it is necessary, to do what, although, in the abstract, of very questionable propriety, appears to be generally acquiesced in, to. wit, to review the case as it originally came up to this court *368on the former writ of error. The cause? then, came up upon a case stated between the parties, and under the .practice of that state, having the effect of a special verdict. The case stated brings into view the treaty of peace with Great Britain,.and then proceeds to present the various laws of .Virginia, and the facts upon which the parties found their respective titles. It then presents no particular question, but refers generally to the law arising out of the case. The original decision was obtained prior tó the treaty of 1794? but.¿before the case was adjudicated in this Court, the treaty of 1794 had been concluded.

The difficulties, of the case arise under the construction, of the.25th section above alluded to, which? as far as it relates to this case, is in these words: “ A final -judgment or decree in any suit, in the highest court pf law or equity of a state in which a decision in the suit could be had,” “ where is drawn in question the construction of any clause of the. constitution or of a treaty,” “ and the decision is against the title set up or claimed by either party under such clause, may be re-exatnined and. reversed, or affirméd.”. “ But no other error shall be assigned or regarded as á ground of reversal in kny such case as aforesaid, than such as appears on the face of thé record, and immediately respects the before-mentioned questions of Validity or construction of the said treaties,” &o.

The first point decided under.this state case was, that the judgment being a part of the record, if that judgment was not such as, upon that case, it -Ho-ht to have been, it was an error apparent on the *369face of the record. -But it was contended that the case there stated presented a number of points upon which the decision below may have been found-? r . . - J ed, and that it did not, therefore, necessarily appear to háye been an error immediately respecting a question on the construction of a treaty. But the court held, that as the reference was general to the law arising out of ..the case, if one question arose, which called for the construction of a treaty, and the decision negatived the right set up under it, this court will, reverse that decision, and that it- is the duty of the party who would avoid the inconvenience of this principle, so' to mould the case as to obviate the ambiguity. And under this point arises the question whether this court can inquire into the title of the party, or whether they are so' restricted in their judicial powqrs ’ as to be confined to decide on the Operation of a treaty Upon a title previously ascertained to exist.

If there is any one point in the case on which an opinion may be given with confidence, it is this, whether we consider the letter of the statute, or the spirit, intent, or meaning, of th-? constitution and of the legislature, as expressed in the 27th section, it is equally dear that the title is the primary object to which the attention of the court is called in every such case. The words are, “and thú decision be against the title,” so set up, not against the construction of the treaty contended for by- the party setting up the title. And how could' it be otherwise ? The title may exist, notwithstanding the decision of the state courts to the contrary; and in that case the *370party is entitled to the benefits intended to be secured by the tréaty. The decision to his prejudice may have been the result of those very errors, partialities, or defects, in state jurisprudence against which the constitution intended to protect the individual. And if the contrary doctrine be assumed, what is the consequence ? This court may then be called upon to decide on a mere hypothetical case — to give a construction to a treaty without first deciding whether there Was any interest on which that treaty, whatever be its proper con.strüction, would operate. This difficulty was felt, and weighed in the case of Smith and. the State of Maryland, and that decision was founded upon the idea that this court was not thus restricted»

But another difficulty presented itself: the treaty of 1794* had become the supreme law of the land since the judgment rendered in the court below. The defendant, who was at that time an alien, had now become confirmed in his rights under that treaty. This would have been no. objection to- the correctness of the original judgment. Were we, then', at liberty to notice that treaty in rendering the judgment of this court ?

Having dissented from the opinion of this court in the original case, on the question of title, this difficulty did not present itself in my way in the view I then, took of the case. But the majority of this court determined that, as a public law, the treaty was a part of the lavr of every case depending in this court; that, qs such, it was not necessary that it should be spread upon the record, and that it was obligatory *371upon this court, in rendering judgment upon this writ of error, notwithstanding the original judgment may have been otherwise unimpeachable. And to this opinion I yielded my. hearty consent; for it cannot be maintained that this court is. bound td give a judgment unlawful at the time of rendering it, in consideration that the same judgment would have been lawful at any prior time. What judgment can now be lawfully rendered'between the parties is the question to which the attention of the court is called. And if the law which sanctioned the original judgment expire, pending an appeal, this court has repeatedly reversed the judgment below* although rendered whilst the law existed. So, too, if the plaintiff in error die, pending suit, and his land descend on an ¿lien, it cannot be contended that this court will maintain the suit in right of the judgment, in favour of his ancestor, notwithstanding his present disability..

It must here be recollected, that this is an action, of ejectment. If the term formally declared upon expires pending the action, .the court will permit the plaintiff to amend, by extending the term — why ? Because, although the right may have been in him at the commencement of the suit, it has ceased before judgment, and without this amendment he could not have judgment. But suppose the suit were really instituted to obtain possession óf a leasehold, and the lease expire before judgment, would the court permit the ¡party to amend in opposition to the right of the case ? On the contrary, if the term formally declared on were more extensive than the *372lease in wnich the legal.title was founded, could they give judgment for more than costs ? . It must b,e recollected that, under this judgment, a writ of restituí tion is the; fruit of the law. This, in its very nature, has relation to, and must be founded upon, a present existing right at the time of judgment. And whatever be the cause which takes this right away, the remedy must, in the reason and nature of things, fall with it.

When all these incidental points aré disposed ,of, we find the question finally reduced to this- — does the judicial power of the United States exteiid to the revision of decisions of state courts, in cases arising under treaties ? But, in order to generalize the question, and present it in the true form in which it presents itself- in this case, we will inquire whether the constitution sanctions the exercise of a revising power over the decisions of state.tribunals in.those cases to which the judicial power of th»- United States extends ?

And here it appears to me that the great difficulty is on the other side.- That the real doubt is, whether the state tribunals can constitutionally exercise jurisdiction in any of the cases to which the judicial' power of the United States extends.

Some cession of judicial power is contemplated by the third article of the constitution: that which is ceded can no longer be retained. . In one of the circuit Courts of the United States, it has been decided (with what correctness I will not say) that the cession of a.power to pass an uniform act of bankruptcy,' although not acted on by the United States, dc*373prives the states oí tne power oi passing laws to that effect. With regard to the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, it would be difficult to prove that the. states could resume it, if the United States should abolish the courts vested with that jurisdiction; yet, it- is blended with the other cases of jurisdiction, in the second section of the third article, and ceded in the same words. But it is contended that the se? cond section of the third article contains no express cession of jurisdiction; that it. only vests a power in congress to assume jurisdiction to the extent therein expressed. And under this head arose the discussion on the construction proper to be given to that article.

On this part of the case I shall not pause long. The rules of construction, where the nature of the instrument is ascertained, are familiar to every one. To me the constitution appears, in every line of it, to be a contract, which, in legal language, may be denominated tripartite. The parties are the people, the states, and the United States. It is returning in a circle to contend, that it professes to be the exclusive act of the people, for what have the people done but to form this compact ? That the states are recognised as parties to it is evident from various passages, and particularly that in which the United States guaranty to each state a republican form of government.

The security and happiness of the whole was the object, and, to prevent disscrdon and collision, each surrendered those powers which might make them dangerous to each other. Well aware of the sensi*374live irritability of sovereign states, where their wills or interests clash, they placed themselves, with regard to each other, on the footing of sovereigns upon the ocean; where power is mutually conceded to act upon the individual, but the national vessel must remain unviolatéd. And to remove all ground for jealousy and complaint, they relinquish the privilege of being any longer the exclusive arbiters of their own justice, where the rights of others come in question, or the great interests of the whole may be affected by those feelings, partialities, or prejudices, which they meant to put down for ever.

Nor shall I enter into a minute discussion on the meaning of the language of this section. I have seldom found much good result from hypercritical severity, in examining the distinct force of words. Language is essentially defective in precision; more so than those are aware of who are not in the habit of subjecting it to philological analysis. In the case before us, for instance, a rigid construction might be made, which would annihilate the powers intended to be ceded. The words are, “ shall extend to;” now that which extends to, does not necessarily include in, so that the circle may enlarge until it reaches the objects that limit it, and yet not take them in. But the plain and obvious sense and meaning of the word shall, in this sentence, is in the future sense, and has nothing imperative in it. The language of the framers of the constitution is, “ We are about forming a general government — when that government is formed, its powers shall extend,” &c. I therefore see nothing imperative in. this clause, and certain!) *375it would have been very unnecessary to use the word in that sense; for, as there was no controlling power constituted, it would only, if used in an imperative sense, have imposed a moral obligation to act. But the same result arises from using it in a future sense, and the constitiition everywhere assumes, as a postulate, that wherever power is given it will be used or at least. used, as. far as the interests of the American people require it, if not from the natural proneness of man to the exercise of power, at least from a sense, of duty, atid the obligation of an oath.

Nor can I see any difference in the’ effect of the words used in this section, as to the scope of the jurisdiction of the United States5 courts over the cases of the first and second description, comprised in that section. “ Shall extend to controversies,” appears to me as comprehensive in effect, as “ sljalh extend to all cases.” For, if the judicial power extend “ to controversies between citizen and alien,” &c., to what controversies of that description does it not extend? If no case can be pointed out which is ex* cepted, it then extends to all controversies.

But I will assume the construction as a sound one, that the cession of power to the general government, means no more than that they may assume the exercise of it whenever they chink it advisable. It is clear that congress have hitherto acted under that impression, and my own opinion is in favour of its correctness. But does it not then follow that the jurisdiction of the state court, within the range ceded to the general government, is permitted, and *376may be withdrawn whenever congress think propér to do so? Aá it is a principle that every one may renounce a right introduced for his benefit, wfe will admit that as congress have not assumed such jurisdiction, the state courts may, constitutionally, exercise jurisdiction in such cases. Yet, surely, the general power to withdraw the exercise of it, included in it the right to modify, limit, and restrain that exercise. “ This is my domain, put not your foot upon it, if you do, yon are subject to my laws* 1 have a right to exclude yoii altpgetherI have,- then, a right to prescribe the terms of your admission to a participation. As long as you conform to my laws, participate in peace, but I reserve to myself the right of judging how far your acts are conformable to my laws.” Analogy, then, to the ordinary exercise of sovereign authority, Would sustain the exercise of this controlling or revising power.

But it is argued that a power to assume jurisdiction to the constitutional extent, does not necessarily carry with it a right to exercise appellate power over the state tribunals.

This is á momentous question, and pne on which I shall reserve myself uncommitted for each particular case as it shall occur. It is enough, at present, to have shown that congress has not asserted, and this court has not attempted, to exercise that kind of authority in personam over the state courts which would place them in the relation of an inferior' responsible body without their own acquiescence. And I have toó much confidence in the state tribunals to believe .that a case ever will occur in which it will bé necessary *377fob the general government to, assume a controlling power over these tribunals.. But is it difficult to 1 . . ■ „ . suppose a case which will call loudly for some remedy or restraint? Suppose a foreign minister, or an officer, acting regularly under authority from the United States, seized to-day, tried to-morrow, and hurried the next day to execution. Such cases may occur, and. have occurred, in other Countries. The angry vindictive passions of men have too often made their way into judicial tribunals, and we cannot hope for ever fo escape their baleful influence, in the case supposed, there ought to' be a power somewhere to. restrain .or punish, or the union must be dissolved. At present the uncontrollable exercise of criminal jurisdiction is most’ securely confided to the state tribunals. The courts of the United,States are vested with no power to scrutinize into the proceedings of the state courts in criminal cases; on the contrary» the general government has, in more than one instance, exhibited their confidence, by a wish to vest them with the execution of their own penal law. And extreme, indeed,-1 flatter myself, must be the cáse in which the general government could ever be induced to assert .this right; If ever such a case should, qCcur, it will be time enough to decide Upon their constitutional power to do so.

But we' know that by the 3d article of the constitution, judicial power, to a certain extent, is vested in the general government, and that by the same instrument, power is given to pass all laws necessary to carry into effect the provisions of the constitution. At present it is only necessary to vindicate the *378laws which they have passed affecting civil cage's pending in state tribunals.

. . In legislating on this subject, congress, in the true spirit of the Constitution, have proposed to secure fa every one the full benefit of the constitution, without forcing any one necessarily into the courts of ■the United States. With this view, ifi one class of cases, they have not taken away absolutely from the state courts all the cases to which their judicial power extends, but - left it to the plaintiff to bring his action there, originally, if he choose^ or to .the defendant to force the plaintiff into the courts of the United States where they have jurisdiction, and the former has instituted his suit in the state courts., In this case they have not made it legal for the defendant to'plead to the jurisdiction; the effect, of which would be to put an end to the plaintiff’s suit, and oblige him, probably at great risk or -expense, to institute a new action; but the act has given him a right to obtain an order for awemoval, on a petition to the state court, .upon which the cause, with all its. existing advantages, is transferred to the circuit court Of the United States. This, I presume, can be subject to no objection; as the legislature has an ■ unquestionable right to make the ground of removal a ground of pleá to the jurisdiction, and the court must then do no more than it is now called upon to do, to wit, give an order or a judgment^ or call it what we will, in favour of that defendant. And so far from asserting the inferiority of the state tribunal, this act is rather that of a superior, inasmuch as the circuit court of the United States becomes bound, *379by that order, to take jurisdiction of the case. This method, so much more unlikely to affect official delicacy than that which is resorted to in the other » class of cases, might, perhaps, have been more happily applied to all the cases which the legislature thought it advisable to remove from the state courts. But the other class of cases, in which the present is included, was proposed to be provided forin a different manner. And here, again, the legislature of the union evince their confidence in the state tribunals ; for they do not attempt, to give original cognizance to their own circuit courts of such cases, or to remove them by petition and order; but still believing that their decisions will be generally satisfactory* a writ of error is not given immediately as á question within the jurisdiction of the United States shall occur, but only in case the decision shall finally, in the court of the last resort, be against the title set up under the constitution, treaty, <5Lc.

In this act I can see nothing which amounts to an assertion of the inferiority or dependence of the state tribunals. The presiding judge of the state court is himself authorized to issue the writ of error., if he will, and thus give jurisdiction to thesupreine court : and if he thinks, proper to decline it, no compulsory process is provid ed by law to oblige him. The party who imagines himself aggrieved is then at liberty to apply to a judge of the United States, who issues the writ of error, which (whatever the form) is, in substance, no more than a mode of compelling the opposite party to appear before this court, and maintain the legality of his judgment obtained before the *380state tribunal. An exemplification of a record is the common property of every one who chooses to apply and pay for it, and thus the case and the parties are brought before us; and so Far is the1 court itself from being brought under the revising power of this court, that nothing but the casé, as presented by the Record and pleadings of the parties, is considered, and tho opinions of the court are never resorted-to unless for the purpose of assisting this court in forming their own opinions.

The absolute necessity that there was for congress to exercise something'of a revising power over cases and parties in the state courts^ will appear,from this consideration.

Suppose the. whole extent of the judicial power of the United States vested in their own conbts, yet such a provision would not answer all the ends of the constitution, for two reasons:

1st. Although the plaintiff may, in such case, have the full benefit of the constitution extended to him, yet the defendant would not; as the plaintiff might force him into the court of the state at hjs election.

2dly. Supposing it possible so tp- legislate as • to give the courts of the United States original jurisdiction in all cases avising under the constitution, laws, &c,, in the-words of the 2d section, of the 3d article, .(a point on which I have some doubt, and which, in time might, perhaps, under some, quo minus fiction, or a willing constrúction, greatly accumulate the jurisdiction of tiróse courts,) yet a very large class of cases would remain unprovided for. incidental questions would ofteri arise, and as a court of competent *381jurisdiction in the principal case must decide all such questions, whatever laws they arise under, endless might be the diversity of decisions throughout the union upon the constitution, treaties, and laws, of the United States; a subject on which the tran-, quillity of the union, internally and externally, may materially depend.

I should feel the more hesitation in adopting the opinions which I express in this case, were I not firmly convinced that they are practical, and may be acted upon without compromitting the harmpny of the union, or bringing humility upon the state tribunals. God forbid that the judicial power in these states should ever, for a moment, even in its humblest departments, feel a doubt of its own independence. Whilst adjudicating on a subject which the laws of the country assign finally to the revising power of another tribunal, it can feel no such doubt. Ah anxiety to do justice is ever relieved by the knowledge that what we do is not final bet weep the parties. And no sense of dependence can be felt from the knowledge that the parties, not the court, may be summoned before another tribunal. With this view, by means of laws, avoiding judgments obtained in the state coürts in cases over, which congress has constitutionally assumed' jurisdiction, and inflicting penalties on parties who shall contumaciously persist .in infringing the constitutional rights of Others — under a libéral extension of thé writ of injunction and the habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, I flatter myself that the full extent of the constitutional revising power may be sefcured to the United. States, and tile *382benefits of it to the individual, without ever resorting to compulsory or restrictive process upon the state tribunals; a right which, I repeat again, congress has hot asserted, ntír has this court asserted, nor does' there appear any-necessity for asserting.

The remaining points in the case being mere questions of practice, I shall make no remarks upon them.

Judgment affirmed.

Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), we upheld the validity of a protective search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest because it is unreasonable to deny a police officer the right “to neutralize the threat of physical harm,” id., at 24, when he possesses an articulable suspicion that an individual is armed and dangerous. We did not, however, expressly address whether such a protective search for weapons could extend to an area beyond the person in the absence of probable cause to arrest. In the present case, respondent David Long was convicted for possession of marihuana found by police in the passenger compartment and trunk of the *1035automobile that he was driving. The police searched the passenger compartment because they had reason to believe that the vehicle contained weapons potentially dangerous to the officers. We hold that the protective search of the passenger compartment was reasonable under the principles articulated in Terry and other decisions of this Court. We also examine Long’s argument that the decision below rests upon an adequate and independent state ground, and we decide in favor of our jurisdiction.

H

Deputies Howell and Lewis were on patrol in a rural area one evening when, shortly after midnight, they observed a car traveling erratically and at excessive speed.1 The officers observed the car turning down a side road, where it swerved off into a shallow ditch. The officers stopped to investigate. Long, the only occupant of the automobile, met the deputies at the rear of the car, which was protruding *1036from the ditch onto the road. The door on the driver’s side of the vehicle was left open.

Deputy Howell requested Long to produce his operator’s license, but he did not respond. After the request was repeated, Long produced his license. Long again failed to respond when Howell requested him to produce the vehicle registration. After another repeated request, Long, who Howell thought “appeared to be under the influence of something,” 413 Mich. 461, 469, 320 N. W. 2d 866, 868 (1982), turned from the officers and began walking toward the open door of the vehicle. The officers followed Long and both observed a large hunting knife on the floorboard of the driver’s side of the car. The officers then stopped Long’s progress and subjected him to a Terry protective patdown, which revealed no weapons.

Long and Deputy Lewis then stood by the rear of the vehicle while Deputy Howell shined his flashlight into the interior of the vehicle, but did not actually enter it. The purpose of Howell’s action was “to search for other weapons.” 413 Mich., at 469, 320 N. W. 2d, at 868. The officer noticed that something was protruding from under the armrest on the front seat. He knelt in the vehicle and lifted the armrest. He saw an open pouch on the front seat, and upon flashing his light on the pouch, determined that it contained what appeared to be marihuana. After Deputy Howell showed the pouch and its contents to Deputy Lewis, Long was arrested for possession of marihuana. A further search of the interior of the vehicle, including the glovebox, revealed neither more contraband nor the vehicle registration. The officers decided to impound the vehicle. Deputy Howell opened the trunk, which did not have a lock, and discovered inside it approximately 75 pounds of marihuana.

The Barry County Circuit Court denied Long’s motion to suppress the marihuana taken from both the interior of the car and its trunk. He was subsequently convicted of possession of marihuana. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Long’s conviction, holding that the search of the passenger *1037compartment was valid as a protective search under Terry, swpra, and that the search of the trunk was valid as an inventory search under South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U. S. 364 (1976). See 94 Mich. App. 338, 288 N. W. 2d 629 (1979). The Michigan Supreme Court reversed. The court held that “the sole justification of the Terry search, protection of the police officers and others nearby, cannot justify the search in this case.” 413 Mich., at 472, 320 N. W. 2d, at 869. The marihuana found in Long’s trunk was considered by the court below to be the “fruit” of the illegal search of the interior, and was also suppressed.2

We granted certiorari in this case to consider the important question of the authority of a police officer to protect himself by conducting a Terry-type search of the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle during the lawful investigatory stop of the occupant of the vehicle. 459 U. S. 904 (1982).

II

Before reaching the merits, we must consider Long’s argument that we are without jurisdiction to decide this case because the decision below rests on an adequate and independent state ground. The court below referred twice to the State Constitution in its opinion, but otherwise relied exclusively on federal law.3 Long argues that the Michigan *1038courts have provided greater protection from searches and seizures under the State Constitution than is afforded under the Fourth Amendment, and the references to the State Constitution therefore establish an adequate and independent ground for the decision below.

It is, of course, “incumbent upon this Court... to ascertain for itself . . . whether the asserted non-federal ground independently and adequately supports the judgment. ” Abie State Bank v. Bryan, 282 U. S. 765, 773 (1931). Although we have announced a number of principles in order to help us determine whether various forms of references to state law constitute adequate and independent state grounds,4 we openly admit that we have thus far not developed a satisfying and consistent approach for resolving this vexing issue. In some instances, we have taken the strict view that if the ground of decision was at all unclear, we would dismiss the case. See, e. g., Lynch v. New York ex rel. Pierson, 293 U. S. 52 (1934). In other instances, we have vacated, *1039see, e. g., Minnesota v. National Tea Co, 309 U. S. 551 (1940), or continued a case, see, e. g., Herb v. Pitcairn, 324 U. S. 117 (1945), in order to obtain clarification about the nature of a state court decision. See also California v. Krivda, 409 U. S. 33 (1972). In more recent cases, we have ourselves examined state law to determine whether state courts have used federal law to guide their application of state law or to provide the actual basis for the decision that was reached. See Texas v. Brown, 460 U. S. 730, 732-733, n. 1 (1983) (plurality opinion). Cf. South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U. S. 553, 569 (1983) (Stevens, J., dissenting). In Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U. S. 667, 670-671 (1982), we rejected an invitation to remand to the state court for clarification even when the decision rested in part on a case from the state court, because we determined that the state case itself rested upon federal grounds. We added that “[e]ven if the case admitted of more doubt as to whether federal and state grounds for decision were intermixed, the fact that the state court relied to the extent it did on federal grounds requires us to reach the merits.” Id., at 671.

This ad hoc method of dealing with cases that involve possible adequate and independent state grounds is antithetical to the doctrinal consistency that is required when sensitive issues of federal-state relations are involved. Moreover, none of the various methods of disposition that we have employed thus far recommends itself as the preferred method that we should apply to the exclusion of others, and we therefore determine that it is appropriate to reexamine our treatment of this jurisdictional issue in order to achieve the consistency that is necessary.

The process of examining state law is unsatisfactory because it requires us to interpret state laws with which we are generally unfamiliar, and which often, as in this case, have not been discussed at length by the parties. Vacation and continuance for clarification have also been unsatisfactory both because of the delay and decrease in efficiency of judi*1040cial administration, see Dixon v. Duffy, 344 U. S. 143 (1952),5 and, more important, because these methods of disposition place significant burdens on state courts to demonstrate the presence or absence of our jurisdiction. See Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Jerome, 434 U. S. 241, 244 (1978) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting); Department of Motor Vehicles v. Rios, 410 U. S. 425, 427 (1973) (Douglas, J., dissenting). Finally, outright dismissal of cases is clearly not a panacea because it cannot be doubted that there is an important need for uniformity in federal law, and that this need goes unsatisfied when we fail to review an opinion that rests primarily upon federal grounds and where the independence of an alleged state ground is not apparent from the four corners of the opinion. We have long recognized that dismissal is inappropriate “where there is strong indication . . . that the federal constitution as judicially construed controlled the decision below.” National Tea Co., supra, at 556.

Respect for the independence of state courts, as well as avoidance of rendering advisory opinions, have been the cornerstones of this Court’s refusal to decide cases where there is an adequate and independent state ground. It is precisely because of this respect for state courts, and this desire to avoid advisory opinions, that we do not wish to continue to decide issues of state law that go beyond the opinion that we review, or to require state courts to reconsider cases to clarify the grounds of their decisions. Accordingly, when, as in this case, a state court decision fairly appears to rest primarily on federal law, or to be interwoven with the federal law, and when the adequacy and independence of any possible *1041state law ground is not clear from the face of the opinion, we will accept as the most reasonable explanation that the state court decided the case the way it did because it believed that federal law required it to do so. If a state court chooses merely to rely on federal precedents as it would on the precedents of all other jurisdictions, then it need only make clear by a plain statement in its judgment or opinion that the federal cases are being used only for the purpose of guidance, and do not themselves compel the result that the court has reached. In this way, both justice and judicial administration will be greatly improved. If the state court decision indicates clearly and expressly that it is alternatively based on bona fide separate, adequate, and independent grounds, we, of course, will not undertake to review the decision.

This approach obviates in most instances the need to examine state law in order to decide the nature of the state court decision, and will at the same time avoid the danger of our rendering advisory opinions.6 It also avoids the unsatisfactory and intrusive practice of requiring state courts to clarify their decisions to the satisfaction of this Court. We believe that such an approach will provide state judges with a clearer opportunity to develop state jurisprudence unimpeded by federal interference, and yet will preserve the integrity of federal law. “It is fundamental that state courts be left free and unfettered by us in interpreting their state constitutions. But it is equally important that ambiguous or obscure adjudications by state courts do not stand as barriers to a determination by this Court of the validity under the federal constitution of state action.” National Tea Co., supra, at 557.

The principle that we will not review judgments of state courts that rest on adequate and independent state grounds *1042is based, in part, on “the limitations of our own jurisdiction.” Herb v. Pitcairn, 324 U. S. 117, 125 (1945).7 The jurisdictional concern is that we not “render an advisory opinion, and if the same judgment would be rendered by the state court after we corrected its views of federal laws, our review could amount to nothing more than an advisory opinion.” Id., at 126. Our requirement of a “plain statement” that a decision rests upon adequate and independent state grounds does not in any way authorize the rendering of advisory opinions. Rather, in determining, as we must, whether we have jurisdiction to review a case that is alleged to rest on adequate and independent state grounds, see Abie State Bank v. Bryan, 282 U. S., at 773, we merely assume that there are no such grounds when it is not clear from the opinion itself that the state court relied upon an adequate and independent state ground and when it fairly appears that the state court rested its decision primarily on federal law.8

*1043Our review of the decision below under this framework leaves us unconvinced that it rests upon an independent state ground. Apart from its two citations to the State Constitution, the court below relied exclusively on its understanding of Terry and other federal cases. Not a single state case was cited to support the state court’s holding that the search of the passenger compartment was unconstitutional.9 Indeed, *1044the court declared that the search in this case was unconstitutional because “[t]he Court of Appeals erroneously applied the principles of Terry v. Ohio ... to the search of the interior of the vehicle in this case.” 413 Mich., at 471, 320 N. W. 2d, at 869. The references to the State Constitution in no way indicate that the decision below rested on grounds in any way independent from the state court’s interpretation of federal law. Even if we accept that the Michigan Constitution has been interpreted to provide independent protection for certain rights also secured under the Fourth Amendment, it fairly appears in this case that the Michigan Supreme Court rested its decision primarily on federal law.

Rather than dismissing the case, or requiring that the state court reconsider its decision on our behalf solely because of a mere possibility that an adequate and independent ground supports the judgment, we find that we have jurisdiction in the absence of a plain statement that the decision below rested on an adequate and independent state ground. It appears to us that the state court “felt compelled by what it understood to be federal constitutional considerations to construe ... its own law in the manner it did.” Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U. S. 562, 568 (1977).10

*1045HH J — I HH

The court below held, and respondent Long contends, that Deputy Howell’s entry into the vehicle cannot be justified under the principles set forth in Terry because “Terry authorized only a limited pat-down search of a person suspected of criminal activity” rather than a search of an area. 413 *1046Mich., at 472, 320 N. W. 2d, at 869 (footnote omitted). Brief for Respondent 10. Although Terry did involve the protective frisk of a person, we believe that the police action in this case is justified by the principles that we have already established in Terry and other cases.

In Terry, the Court examined the validity of a “stop and frisk” in the absence of probable cause and a warrant. The police officer in Terry detained several suspects to ascertain their identities after the officer had observed the suspects for a brief period of time and formed the conclusion that they were about to engage in criminal activity. Because the officer feared that the suspects were armed, he patted down the outside of the suspects’ clothing and discovered two revolvers.

Examining the reasonableness of the officer’s conduct in Terry, 11 we held that there is “‘no ready test for determining reasonableness other than by balancing the need to search [or seize] against the invasion which the search [or seizure] entails.’” 392 U. S., at 21 (quoting Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523, 536-537 (1967)). Although the conduct of the officer in Terry involved a “severe, though brief, intrusion upon cherished personal security,” 392 U. S., at 24-25, *1047we found that the conduct was reasonable when we weighed the interest of the individual against the legitimate interest in “crime prevention and detection,” id., at 22, and the “need for law enforcement officers to protect themselves and other prospective victims of violence in situations where they may lack probable cause for an arrest.” Id., at 24. When the officer has a reasonable belief “that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others, it would appear to be clearly unreasonable to deny the officer the power to take necessary measures to determine whether the person is in fact carrying a weapon and to neutralize the threat of physical harm.” Ibid.

Although Terry itself involved the stop and subsequent patdown search of a person, we were careful to note that “[w]e need not develop at length in this case, however, the limitations which the Fourth Amendment places upon a protective search and seizure for weapons. These limitations will have to be developed in the concrete factual circumstances of individual cases. ” Id., at 29. Contrary to Long’s view, Terry need not be read as restricting the preventative search to the person of the detained suspect.12

In two cases in which we applied Terry to specific factual situations, we recognized that investigative detentions involving suspects in vehicles are especially fraught with danger to police officers. In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106 (1977), we held that police may order persons out of *1048an automobile during a stop for a traffic violation, and may frisk those persons for weapons if there is a reasonable belief that they are armed and dangerous. Our decision rested in part on the “inordinate risk confronting an officer as he approaches a person seated in an automobile.” Id., at 110. In Adams v. Williams, 407 U. S. 143 (1972), we held that the police, acting on an informant’s tip, may reach into the passenger compartment of an automobile to remove a gun from a driver’s waistband even where the gun was not apparent to police from outside the car and the police knew of its existence only because of the tip. Again, our decision rested in part on our view of the danger presented to police officers in “traffic stop” and automobile situations.13

*1047“The opinion in Terry authorized the frisking of an overcoat worn by defendant because that was the issue presented by the facts. One could reasonably conclude that a different result would not have been constitutionally required if the overcoat had been carried, folded over the forearm, rather than worn. The constitutional principles stated in Terry would still control.” 413 Mich., at 475-476, 320 N. W. 2d, at 871 (footnote omitted).

*1048Finally, we have also expressly recognized that suspects may injure police officers and others by virtue of their access to weapons, even though they may not themselves be armed. In the Term following Terry, we decided Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752 (1969), which involved the limitations imposed on police authority to conduct a search incident to a valid arrest. Relying explicitly on Terry, we held that when an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search “the arrestee’s person and the area ‘within his immediate control’ — construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.” 395 U. S., at 763. We reasoned that “[a] gun on a table or in a drawer in front of one who is arrested can be as dangerous to the arresting officer as one concealed in the clothing of the person arrested.” Ibid. In New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454 (1981), we determined that the lower courts “have found no workable definition of ‘the area within the immediate control of the arrestee’ when *1049that area arguably includes the interior of an automobile and the arrestee is its recent occupant.” Id., at 460. In order to provide a “workable rule,” ibid., we held that “articles inside the relatively narrow compass of the passenger compartment of an automobile are in fact generally, even if not inevitably, within ‘the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon’ . . . .” Ibid, (quoting Chimel, swpra, at 763). We also held that the police may examine the contents of any open or closed container found within the passenger compartment, “for if the passenger compartment is within the reach of the arrestee, so will containers in it be within his reach.” 453 U. S., at 460 (footnote omitted). See also Michigan v. Summers, 452 U. S. 692, 702 (1981).

Our past cases indicate then that protection of police and others can justify protective searches when police have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a danger, that roadside encounters between police and suspects are especially hazardous, and that danger may arise from the possible presence of weapons in the area surrounding a suspect. These principles compel our conclusion that the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on “specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant” the officer in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons.14 See Terry, 392 *1050U. S., at 21. “[T]he issue is whether a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger.” Id., at 27. If a suspect is “dangerous,” he is no less dangerous simply because he is not arrested. If, while conducting a legitimate Terry search of the interior of the automobile, the officer should, as here, discover contraband other than weapons, he clearly cannot be required to ignore the contraband, and the Fourth Amendment does not require its suppression in such circumstances. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 465 (1971); Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U. S. 499, 509 (1978); Texas v. Brown, 460 U. S., at 739 (plurality opinion by Rehnquist, J.); id., at 746 (Powell, J., concurring in judgment).

The circumstances of this case clearly justified Deputies Howell and Lewis in their reasonable belief that Long posed a danger if he were permitted to reenter his vehicle. The hour was late and the area rural. Long was driving his automobile at excessive speed, and his car swerved into a ditch. The officers had to repeat their questions to Long, who appeared to be “under the influence” of some intoxicant. Long was not frisked until the officers observed that there was a large knife in the interior of the car into which Long was about to reenter. The subsequent search of the car was restricted to those areas to which Long would generally have immediate control, and that could contain a weapon. The trial court determined that the leather pouch containing *1051marihuana could have contained a weapon. App. 64a.15 It is clear that the intrusion was “strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justified] its initiation.” Terry, supra, at 26.

In evaulating the validity of an officer’s investigative or protective conduct under Terry, the “[tjouchstone of our analysis ... is always ‘the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security.’” Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S., at 108-109 (quoting Terry, supra, at 19). In this case, the officers did not act unreasonably in taking preventive measures to ensure that there were no other weapons within Long’s immediate grasp before permitting him to reenter his automobile. Therefore, the balancing required by Terry clearly weighs in favor of allowing the police to conduct an area search of the passenger compartment to uncover weapons, as long as they possess an articulable and objectively reasonable belief that the suspect is potentially dangerous.

The Michigan Supreme Court appeared to believe that it was not reasonable for the officers to fear that Long could injure them, because he was effectively under their control during the investigative stop and could not get access to any weapons that might have been located in the automobile. See 413 Mich., at 472, 320 N. W. 2d, at 869. This reasoning is mistaken in several respects. During any investigative detention, the suspect is “in the control” of the officers in the sense that he “may be briefly detained against his will. . . .” Terry, supra, at 34 (White, J., concurring). Just as a Terry suspect on the street may, despite being under the brief control of a police officer, reach into his clothing and retrieve a weapon, so might a Terry suspect in Long’s position break away from police control and retrieve a weapon from his automobile. See United States v. Rainone, 586 F. 2d 1132, 1134 (CA71978), cert. denied, 440 U. S. 980 (1979). In addi-

*1052tion, if the suspect is not placed under arrest, he will be permitted to reenter his automobile, and he will then have access to any weapons inside. United States v. Powless, 546 F. 2d 792, 795-796 (CA8), cert. denied, 430 U. S. 910 (1977). Or, as here, the suspect may be permitted to reenter the vehicle before the Terry investigation is over, and again, may have access to weapons. In any event, we stress that a Terry investigation, such as the one that occurred here, involves a police investigation “at close range,” Terry, 392 U. S., at 24, when the officer remains particularly vulnerable in part because a full custodial arrest has not been effected, and the officer must make a “quick decision as to how to protect himself and others from possible danger . . . .” Id., at 28. In such circumstances, we have not required that officers adopt alternative means to ensure their safety in order to avoid the intrusion involved in a Terry encounter.16

*1053HH <

The trial court and the Court of Appeals upheld the search of the trunk as a valid inventory search under this Court’s decision in South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U. S. 364 (1976). The Michigan Supreme Court did not address this holding, and instead suppressed the marihuana taken from the trunk as a fruit of the illegal search of the interior of the automobile. Our holding that the initial search was justified under Terry makes it necessary to determine whether the trunk search was permissible under the Fourth Amendment. However, we decline to address this question because it was not passed upon by the Michigan Supreme Court, whose decision we review in this case. See Cardinale v. Louisiana, 394 U. S. 437, 438 (1969). We remand this issue to the court below, to enable it to determine whether the trunk search was permissible under Opperman, supra, or other decisions of this Court. See, e. g., United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798 (1982).17

*1054V

The judgment of the Michigan Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Blackmun,

concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

I join Parts I, III, IV, and V of the Court’s opinion. While I am satisfied that the Court has jurisdiction in this particular case, I do not join the Court, in Part II of its opinion, in fashioning a new presumption of jurisdiction over cases coming here from state courts. Although I agree with the Court that uniformity in federal criminal law is desirable, I see little efficiency and an increased danger of advisory opinions in the Court’s new approach.

Justice Brennan, with whom Justice Marshall joins, dissenting.

The Court today holds that “the protective search of the passenger compartment” of the automobile involved in this case “was reasonable under the principles articulated in Terry and other decisions of this Court.” Ante, at 1035. I disagree. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), does not support the Court’s conclusion and the reliance on “other decisions” is patently misplaced. Plainly, the Court is simply continuing the process of distorting Terry beyond recognition and forcing it into service as an unlikely weapon against the Fourth Amendment’s fundamental requirement that searches and seizures be based on probable cause. See United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696, 714-717 (1983) (BRENNAN, J., concurring in result). I, therefore, dissent.1

*1055On three occasions this Term I have discussed the limited scope of the exception to the probable-cause requirement created by Terry and its progeny. See Florida v. Royer, 460 U. S. 491, 509-511 (1983) (Brennan, J., concurring in result); Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U. S. 352, 364-365 (1983) (Brennan, J., concurring); United States v. Place, supra, at 711-717 (Brennan, J., concurring in result). I will not repeat those discussions here and note only that “Terry, and the cases that followed it, permit only brief investigative stops and extremely limited searches based on reasonable suspicion.” 462 U. S., at 714. However, the Court’s opinion compels a detailed review of Terry itself.

In Terry, the Court confronted the “quite narrow question” of “whether it is always unreasonable for a policeman to seize a person and subject him to a limited search for weapons unless there is probable cause for an arrest.” 392 U. S., at 15 (emphasis supplied). Because the Court was dealing “with an entire rubric of police conduct. . . which historically [had] not been, and as a practical matter could not be, subjected to the warrant procedure,” id., at 20, the Court tested the conduct at issue “by the Fourth Amendment’s general proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Ibid. (footnote omitted). In considering the “reasonableness” of the conduct, the Court balanced “‘the need to search [or seize] against the invasion which the search [or seizure] entails.’” Id., at 21, quoting Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523, 534-535, 536-537 (1967). It deserves emphasis that in discussing the “invasion” at issue, the Court stated that “[e]ven a limited search of the outer clothing for weapons constitutes a severe, though brief, intrusion upon cherished personal security....” 392 U. S., at 24-25 (emphasis supplied). Ultimately, the Court concluded that “there must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has prob*1056able cause to arrest the individual for a crime.” Id., at 27 (emphasis supplied). The Court expressed its holding as follows:

“We merely hold today that where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others’ safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.” Id., at 30 (emphasis supplied).

It is clear that Terry authorized only limited searches of the person for weapons. In light of what Terry said, relevant portions of which the Court neglects to quote, the Court’s suggestion that “Terry need not be read as restricting the preventive search to the person of the detained suspect,” ante, at 1047 (footnote omitted), can only be described as disingenuous. Nothing in Terry authorized police officers to search a suspect’s car based on reasonable suspicion. The Court confirmed this this very Term in United States v. Place, supra, where it described the search authorized by Terry as a “limited search for weapons, or ‘frisk’. ...” 462 U. S., at 702. The search at issue in this case is a far cry from a “frisk” and certainly was not “limited.”2

*1057The Court’s reliance on Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752 (1969), and New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454 (1981), as support for its new “area search” rule within the context of a Terry stop is misplaced. In Chimel, the Court addressed the scope of a search incident to a lawful arrest, 395 U. S., at 753, and held invalid the search at issue there because it “went far beyond the petitioner’s person and the area from within which he might have obtained either a weapon or something that could have been used as evidence against him.” Id., at 768. Chimel stressed the need to limit the scope of searches incident to arrest and overruled two prior decisions of this Court validating overly broad searches. Ibid.

In Belton, the Court considered the scope of a search incident to the lawful custodial arrest of an occupant of an automobile. 453 U. S., at 455. In this “particular and problematic context,” id., at 460, n. 3, the Court held that “when a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile.” Id., at 460 (footnote omitted).3

The critical distinction between this case and Terry on the one hand, and Chimel and Belton on the other, is that the latter two cases arose within the context of lawful custodial arrests supported by probable cause.4 The Court in Terry expressly recognized the difference between a search incident to arrest and the “limited search for weapons,” 392 U. S., at 25, involved in that case. The Court stated:

*1058“[A search incident to arrest], although justified in part by the acknowledged necessity to protect the arresting officer from assault with a concealed weapon, ... is also justified on other grounds, . . . and can therefore involve a relatively extensive exploration of the person. A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest, however, must, like any other search, be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation. . . . Thus it must be limited to that which is necessary for the discovery of weapons which might be used to harm the officer or others nearby, and may realistically be characterized as something less than a ‘full’ search, even though it remains a serious intrusion.

“. . . An arrest is a wholly different kind of intrusion upon individual freedom from a limited search for weapons, and the interests each is designed to serve are likewise quite different. An arrest is the initial stage of a criminal prosecution. It is intended to vindicate society’s interest in having its laws obeyed, and it is inevitably accompanied by future interference with the individual’s freedom of movement, whether or not trial or conviction ultimately follows. The protective search for weapons, on the other hand, constitutes a brief, though far from inconsiderable, intrusion upon the sanctity of the person.” Id., at 25-26 (footnote omitted).

In United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218 (1973), the Court relied on the differences between searches incident to lawful custodial arrests and Terry “stop-and-frisk” searches to reject an argument that the limitations established in Terry should be applied to a search incident to arrest. 414 U. S., at 228. The Court noted that “Terry clearly recognized the distinction between the two types of searches, and that a different rule governed one than governed the other,” id., at 233, and described Terry as involving “stricter . . . standards,” 414 U. S., at 234, than those governing searches incident to arrest. The Court went on to state:

*1059“A custodial arrest of a suspect based on probable cause is a reasonable intrusion under the Fourth Amendment; that intrusion being lawful, a search incident to the arrest requires no additional justification. It is the fact of the lawful arrest which establishes the authority to search, and we hold that in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a ‘reasonable’ search under that Amendment.” Id., at 235.

See also id., at 237-238 (Powell, J., concurring) (“The search incident to arrest is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because the privacy interest protected by that constitutional guarantee is legitimately abated by the fact of arrest” (footnote omitted)); Gustafson v. Florida, 414 U. S. 260, 264 (1973).

As these cases recognize, there is a vital difference between searches incident to lawful custodial arrests and Terry protective searches. The Court deliberately ignores that difference in relying on principles developed within the context of intrusions supported by probable cause to arrest to construct an “area search” rule within the context of a Terry stop.

The Court denies that an “area search” is fundamentally inconsistent with Terry, see ante, at 1052, n. 16, stating:

“We have recognized that Terry searches are limited insofar as they may not be conducted in the absence of an articulable suspicion that the intrusion is justified, see e. g., Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40, 65 (1968), and that they are protective in nature and limited to weapons, see Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U. S. 85, 93-94 (1979). However, neither of these concerns is violated by our decision. To engage in an area search, which is limited to seeking weapons, the officer must have an articulable suspicion that the suspect is potentially dangerous.” Ibid.

*1060This patently is no answer: respondent’s argument relates to the scope of the search, not to the standard that justifies it. The Court flouts Terry’s holding that Terry searches must be carefully limited in scope. See supra, at 1056. Indeed, the page in Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40 (1968), cited by the Court states:

“Even assuming arguendo that there were adequate grounds to search Sibron for weapons, the nature and scope of the search conducted by Patrolman Martin were so clearly unrelated to that justification as to render the heroin inadmissible. The search for weapons approved in Terry consisted solely of a limited patting of the outer clothing of the suspect for concealed objects which might be used as instruments of assault. Only when he discovered such objects did the officer in Terry place his hands in the pockets of the men he searched. In this case, with no attempt at an initial limited exploration for arms, Patrolman Martin thrust his hand into Sibron’s pocket and took from him envelopes of heroin. His testimony shows that he was looking for narcotics, and he found them. The search was not reasonably limited in scope to the accomplishment of the only goal which might conceivably have justified its inception — the protection of the officer by disarming a potentially dangerous man.” Id., at 65 (emphasis supplied).5

As this passage makes clear, the scope of a search is determined not only by reference to its purpose, but also by reference to its intrusiveness. Yet the Court today holds that a search of a car (and the containers within it) that is not even occupied by the suspect is only as intrusive as, or perhaps less intrusive than, thrusting a hand into a pocket after an *1061initial patdown has suggested the presence of concealed objects that might be used as weapons.

The Court suggests no limit on the “area search” it now authorizes. The Court states that a “search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on ‘specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant’ the officers in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons.” Ante, at 1049 (footnote omitted). Presumably a weapon “may be placed or hidden” anywhere in a car. A weapon also might be hidden in a container in the car. In this case, the Court upholds the officer’s search of a leather pouch because it “could have contained a weapon.” Ante, at 1050-1051 (footnote omitted). In addition, the Court’s requirement that an officer have a reasonable suspicion that a suspect is armed and dangerous does little to check the initiation of an area search. In this case, the officers saw a hunting knife in the car, see ante, at 1036, 1050, but the Court does not base its holding that the subsequent search was permissible on the ground that possession of the knife may have been illegal under state law. See ante, at 1052-1053, n. 16. An individual can lawfully possess many things that can be used as weapons. A hammer, or a baseball bat, can be used as a very effective weapon. Finally, the Court relies on the following facts to conclude that the officers had a reasonable suspicion that respondent was presently dangerous: the hour was late; the area was rural; respondent had been driving at an excessive speed; he had been involved in an accident; he was not immediately responsive to the officers’ questions; and he appeared to be under the influence of some intoxicant. Ante, at 1050. Based on these facts, one might reasonably conclude that respondent was drunk. A drunken driver is indeed dangerous while driving, but not while stopped on the roadside by *1062the police. Even when an intoxicated person lawfully has in his car an object that could be used as a weapon, it requires imagination to conclude that he is presently dangerous. Even assuming that the facts in this case justified the officers’ initial “frisk” of respondent, see ante, at 1035-1036, 1050-1051, and n. 15, they hardly provide adequate justification for a search of a suspect’s car and the containers within it. This represents an intrusion not just different in degree, but in kind, from the intrusion sanctioned by Terry. In short, the implications of the Court’s decision are frightening.

The Court also rejects the Michigan Supreme Court’s view that it “was not reasonable for the officers to fear that [respondent] could injure them, because he was effectively under their control during the investigative stop and could not get access to any weapons that might have been located in the automobile.” Ante, at 1051. In this regard, the Court states:

“[W]e stress that a Terry investigation, such as the one that occurred here, involves a police investigation ‘at close range,’ . . . when the officer remains particularly vulnerable in part because a full custodial arrest has not been effected, and the officer must make a ‘quick decision as to how to protect himself and others from possible danger.’ ... In such circumstances, we have not required that officers adopt alternative means to ensure their safety in order to avoid the intrusion involved in a Terry encounter.” Ante, at 1052 (footnote omitted; emphasis in original).

Putting aside the fact that the search at issue here involved a far more serious intrusion than that “involved in a Terry encounter,” see ibid., and as such might suggest the need for resort to “alternative means,” the Court’s reasoning is perverse. The Court’s argument in essence is that the absence of probable cause to arrest compels the conclusion that a broad search, traditionally associated in scope with a search incident to arrest, must be permitted based on reasonable suspicion. But United States v. Robinson, stated: “It is *1063scarcely open to doubt that the danger to an officer is far greater in the case of the extended exposure which follows the taking of a suspect into custody and transporting him to the police station than in the case of the relatively fleeting contact resulting from the typical Terry-type stop.” 414 U. S., at 234-235. In light of Robinson’s observation, today’s holding leaves in grave doubt the question of whether the Court’s assessment of the relative dangers posed by given confrontations is based on any principled standard.

Moreover, the Court’s reliance on a “balancing” of the relevant interests to justify its decision, see ante, at 1051, is certainly inappropriate. In Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200 (1979), the Court stated that “[t]he narrow intrusions involved in [Terry and its progeny] were judged by a balancing test rather than by the general principle that Fourth Amendment seizures must be supported by the ‘long-prevailing standards’ of probable cause, . . . only because these intrusions fell far short of the kind of intrusion associated with an arrest.” Id., at 212. The intrusion involved in this case is precisely “the kind of intrusion associated with an arrest.” There is no justification, therefore, for “balancing” the relevant interests.

In sum, today’s decision reflects once again the threat to Fourth Amendment values posed by “balancing.” See United States v. Place, 462 U. S., at 717-719 (Brennan, J., concurring in result). As Justice Frankfurter stated in United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U. S. 56 (1950):

“To say that the search must be reasonable is to require some criterion of reason. It is no guide at all either for a jury or for district judges or the police to say that an ‘unreasonable search’ is forbidden — that the search must be reasonable. What is the test of reason which makes a search reasonable? The test is the reason underlying and expressed by the Fourth Amendment: the history and the experience which it embodies and the safeguards afforded by it against the evils to which it was a response.” Id., at 83 (dissenting opinion).

*1064Hornbook law has been that “the police may not conduct a search unless they first convince a neutral magistrate that there is probable cause to do so.” New York v. Belton, 453 U. S., at 457. While under some circumstances the police may search a car without a warrant, see, e. g., Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132 (1925), “the exception to the warrant requirement established in Carroll. . . applies only to searches of vehicles that are supported by probable cause.” United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798, 809 (1982) (footnote omitted). “[T]he Court in Carroll emphasized the importance of the requirement that officers have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband.” Id., at 807-808. See also Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266, 269 (1973) (“Automobile or no automobile, there must be probable cause for the search” (footnote omitted)). Today the Court discards these basic principles and employs the very narrow exception established by Terry “to swallow the general rule that Fourth Amendment [searches of cars] are 'reasonable’ only if based on probable cause.”6 Dunaway v. New York, supra, at 213. See also United States v. Place, supra, at 718-719 (Brennan, J., concurring in result).

Today’s decision disregards the Court’s warning in Almeida-Sanchez: “The needs of law enforcement stand in constant tension with the Constitution’s protections of the individual against certain exercises of official power. It is precisely the predictability of these pressures that counsels a resolute loyalty to constitutional safeguards.” 413 U. S., at 273. Of course, police should not be exposed to unnecessary danger in the performance of their duties. But a search of a car and the containers within it based on nothing more than reasonable suspicion, even under the circumstances present *1065here, cannot be sustained without doing violence to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. There is no reason in this case why the officers could not have pursued less intrusive, but equally effective, means of insuring their safety.7 Cf. United States v. Place, supra, at 715-716; Florida v. Royer, 460 U. S., at 511, n. (Brennan, J., concurring in result). The Court takes a long step today toward “balancing” into oblivion the protections the Fourth Amendment affords. I dissent, for as Justice Jackson said in Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160 (1949):

“[Fourth Amendment rights] are not mere second-class rights but belong in the catalog of indispensable freedoms. Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual and putting terror in every heart. Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government.” Id., at 180 (dissenting opinion).

Justice Stevens, dissenting.

The jurisprudential questions presented in this case are far more important than the question whether the Michigan police officer’s search of respondent’s car violated the Fourth Amendment. The case raises profoundly significant questions concerning the relationship between two sovereigns— the State of Michigan and the United States of America.

The Supreme Court of the State of Michigan expressly held “that the deputies’ search of the vehicle was proscribed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and art 1, §11 of the Michigan Constitution.” 413 Mich. 461, 472-473, 320 N. W. 2d 866, 870 (1982) (emphasis added). *1066The state law ground is clearly adequate to support the judgment, but the question whether it is independent of the Michigan Supreme Court’s understanding of federal law is more difficult. Four possible ways of resolving that question present themselves: (1) asking the Michigan Supreme Court directly, (2) attempting to infer from all possible sources of state law what the Michigan Supreme Court meant, (3) presuming that adequate state grounds are independent unless it clearly appears otherwise, or (4) presuming that adequate state grounds are not independent unless it clearly appears otherwise. This Court has, on different occasions, employed each of the first three approaches; never until today has it even hinted at the fourth. In order to “achieve the consistency that is necessary,” the Court today undertakes a reexamination of all the possibilities. Ante, at 1039. It rejects the first approach as inefficient and unduly burdensome for state courts, and rejects the second approach as an inappropriate expenditure of our resources. Ante, at 1039-1040. Although I find both of those decisions defensible in themselves, I cannot accept the Court’s decision to choose the fourth approach over the third — to presume that adequate state grounds are intended to be dependent on federal law unless the record plainly shows otherwise. I must therefore dissent.

If we reject the intermediate approaches, we are left with a choice between two presumptions: one in favor of our taking jurisdiction, and one against it. Historically, the latter presumption has always prevailed. See, e. g., Durley v. Mayo, 351 U. S. 277, 285 (1956); Stembridge v. Georgia, 343 U. S. 541, 547 (1952); Lynch v. New York ex rel. Pierson, 293 U. S. 52 (1934). The rule, as succinctly stated in Lynch, was as follows:

“Where the judgment of the state court rests on two grounds, one involving a federal question and the other not, or if it does not appear upon which of two grounds the judgment was based, and the ground independent of a federal question is sufficient in itself to sustain it, this *1067Court will not take jurisdiction. Allen v. Arguimbau, 198 U. S. 149, 154, 155; Johnson v. Risk, [137 U. S. 300, 306, 307]; Wood Mowing & Reaping Machine Co. v. Skinner, [139 U. S. 293, 295, 297]; Consolidated Turnpike Co. v. Norfolk & Ocean View Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 596, 599; Cuyahoga River Power Co. v. Northern Realty Co., 244 U. S. 300, 302, 304.” Id., at 54-55.

The Court today points out that in several cases we have weakened-the traditional presumption by using the other two intermediate approaches identified above. Since those two approaches are now to be rejected, however, I would think that stare decisis would call for a return to historical principle. Instead, the Court seems to conclude that because some precedents are to be rejected, we must overrule them all.1

Even if I agreed with the Court that we are free to consider as a fresh proposition whether we may take presumptive jurisdiction over the decisions of sovereign States, I could not agree that an expansive attitude makes good sense. It appears to be common ground that any rule we adopt should show “respect for state courts, and [a] desire to avoid advisory opinions.” Ante, at 1040. And I am confident that all Members of this Court agree that there is a vital interest in the sound management of scarce federal judicial resources. All of those policies counsel against the exercise of federal jurisdiction. They are fortified by my belief that a policy of judicial restraint — one that allows other decisional bodies to have the last word in legal interpretation until it is truly necessary for this Court to intervene — enables this Court to make its most effective contribution to our federal system of government.

The nature of the case before us hardly compels a departure from tradition. These are not cases in which an American citizen has been deprived of a right secured by the United *1068States Constitution or a federal statute. Rather, they are cases in which a state court has upheld a citizen’s assertion of a right, finding the citizen to be protected under both federal and state law. The attorney for the complaining party is an officer of the State itself, who asks us to rule that the state court interpreted federal rights too broadly and “overprotected” the citizen.

Such cases should not be of inherent concern to this Court. The reason may be illuminated by assuming that the events underlying this case had arisen in another country, perhaps the Republic of Finland. If the Finnish police had arrested a Finnish citizen for possession of marihuana, and the Finnish courts had turned him loose, no American would have standing to object. If instead they had arrested an American citizen and acquitted him, we might have been concerned about the arrest but we surely could not have complained about the acquittal, even if the Finnish court had based its decision on its understanding of the United States Constitution. That would be true even if we had a treaty with Finland requiring it to respect the rights of American citizens under the United States Constitution. We would only be motivated to intervene if an American citizen were unfairly arrested, tried, and convicted by the foreign tribunal.

In this case the State of Michigan has arrested one of its citizens and the Michigan Supreme Court has decided to turn him loose. The respondent is a United States citizen as well as a Michigan citizen, but since there is no claim that he has been mistreated by the State of Michigan, the final outcome of the state processes offended no federal interest whatever. Michigan simply provided greater protection to one of its citizens than some other State might provide or, indeed, than this Court might require throughout the country.

I believe that in reviewing the decisions of state courts, the primary role of this Court is to make sure that persons who seek to vindicate federal rights have been fairly heard. That belief resonates with statements in many of our prior cases.

*1069In Abie State Bank v. Bryan, 282 U. S. 765 (1931), the Supreme Court of Nebraska had rejected a federal constitutional claim, relying in part on the state law doctrine of laches. Writing for the Court in response to the Nebraska Governor’s argument that the Court should not accept jurisdiction because laches provided an independent ground for decision, Chief Justice Hughes concluded that this Court must ascertain for itself whether the asserted nonfederal ground independently and adequately supported the judgment “in order that constitutional guaranties may appropriately be enforced.” Id., at 773. He relied on our earlier opinion in Union Pacific R. Co. v. Public Service Comm’n of Missouri, 248 U. S. 67 (1918), in which Justice Holmes had made it clear that the Court engaged in such an inquiry so that it would not “be possible for a State to impose an unconstitutional burden” on a private party. Id., at 70. And both Abie and Union Pacific rely on Creswill v. Knights of Pythias, 225 U. S. 246, 261 (1912), in which the Court explained its duty to review the findings of fact of a state court “where a Federal right has been denied.”

Until recently we had virtually no interest in cases of this type. Thirty years ago, this Court reviewed only one. Nevada v. Stacker, 346 U. S. 906 (1953). Indeed, that appears to have been the only case during the entire 1953 Term in which a State even sought review of a decision by its own judiciary. Fifteen years ago, we did not review any such cases, although the total number of requests had mounted to three.2 Some time during the past decade, perhaps about *1070the time of the 5-to-4 decision in Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U. S. 562 (1977), our priorities shifted. The result is a docket swollen with requests by States to reverse judgments that their courts have rendered in favor of their citizens.3 I am confident that a future Court will recognize the error of this allocation of resources. When that day comes, I think it likely that the Court will also reconsider the propriety of today’s expansion of our jurisdiction.

The Court offers only one reason for asserting authority over cases such as the one presented today: “an important need for uniformity in federal law [that] goes unsatisfied when we fail to review an opinion that rests primarily upon federal grounds and where the independence of an alleged state ground is not apparent from the four corners of the opinion.” Ante, at 1040 (emphasis omitted). Of course, the supposed need to “review an opinion” clashes directly with our oft-repeated reminder that “our power is to correct wrong judgments, not to revise opinions.” Herb v. Pitcairn, 324 U. S. 117, 126 (1945). The clash is not merely one of form: the “need for uniformity in federal law” is truly an ungovernable engine. That same need is no less present when *1071it is perfectly clear that a state ground is both independent and adequate. In fact, it is equally present if a state prosecutor announces that he believes a certain policy of nonenforcement is commanded by federal law. Yet we have never claimed jurisdiction to correct such errors, no matter how egregious they may be, and no matter how much they may thwart the desires of the state electorate. We do not sit to expound our understanding of the Constitution to interested listeners in the legal community; we sit to resolve disputes. If it is not apparent that our views would affect the outcome of a particular case, we cannot presume to interfere.4

*1072Finally, I am thoroughly baffled by the Court’s suggestion that it must stretch its jurisdiction and reverse the judgment of the Michigan Supreme Court in order to show “[r]espect for the independence of state courts.” Ante, at 1040. Would we show respect for the Republic of Finland by convening a special sitting for the sole purpose of declaring that its decision to release an American citizen was based upon a misunderstanding of American law?

I respectfully dissent.

The CHIEF JUSTICE

delivered the Opinion of the court.

The first question necessarily is that of jurisdiction; for, if the act of March, 1868, takes away the jurisdiction defined by the act of February, 1867, it is useless, if not improper, to enter into any discussion of other questions.

It is quite true, as was argued by the counsel for the petitioner, that the appellate jurisdiction of this court is not derived from acts of Congress. It is, strictly speaking, con*513ferred .by the Constitution. But it is conferred “ with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make.”

It is unnecessary to consider whether, if Congress had made no exceptions and no regulations, this court might not have exercised general appellaté jurisdiction under rules prescribed by itself. For among the earliest acts of the first Congress, at its first session, was the act of September 2ith, 1789, to establish the judicial courts of the United States. That act provided for the organization of this court, aud prescribed regulations for the exercise of its jurisdiction.

The source of that jurisdiction, and the limitations of it by the 'Constitution and by statute, have been on several occasions subjects of, consideration here. In the ease of Durousseau v. The United States,* particularly,.the whole matter was- carefully examined, and the court held, that while “the appellate, power's of this court are n'ot given by the, judicial act, but are given by the Constitution,” they are,' nevertheless, “limited and regulated by that act, and by such other acts as have been passed on the subject.” ,The court said, further, that- the judicial act was an exercise of the power given by the Constitution to Congress “of making exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.” “ They have described affirmatively,” said the court, “its jurisdiction, and'this affirmative description has been understood to imply a negation of the exercise of such appellate power as is not comprehended within it.”

The principle that the affirmation of appellate jurisdiction implies the negation of all such jurisdiction not affirmed having been thus established!, it was an.almost necessary consequence that acts of Congress, providing, for'the exercise of jurisdiction, should come to be • spoken• of as acts granting jurisdiction, aud not as acts making'exceptions to the constitutional grant of it.'

The exception to appellate jurisdiction in the ease’before us, however, is not an inference from the affirmation of other *514appellate jurisdiction. It is made in terms. The provision of the act of 1867,'affirming the appellate jurisdiction of this court in cases of habeas Corpus is expressly-repealed. It is hardly possible to imagine, a plainer instance of positive exception.

■We are not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the legislature.. We can only examine into its power under the Constitution; and the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction-of this court is given by express words.

’ What, then, is the effect of the repealing act upon the case before us? We cannot doubt as to this. Without' jurisdiction the court cannot-proceed ;at all in any .cause. Jurisdiction is power to declai’e the law, and when it ceases to. exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause, lAnd this is not less clear upon authority, than upon principle.

Several cases were cited by the counsel for the petitioner in support of the position that jurisdiction of this cáse is not affected by the repealing act. But none of them, in our judgment, afford any support to it. They are all-eases of the exercise of judicial power by'the legislature, or of legislative interference with courts in the exercising of continuing jurisdiction.*

On the other hand, the general rule, supported by the best' elementary writers,† is, that “ when an act of the legislature is repealed, it must be considered, except as to transactions .past and closed, as if it never existed.” And the effeet.of repealing acts upon suits under acts repealed, has been • determined by the adjudications of this court.' The subject was fully considered in Norris v. Crocker,‡ and more recently in Insurance Company v. Ritchie.§ In both of these cases, it was held that no judgment could be rendered in a suit after the repeal,of the act under which it was brought ami prosecuted.

*515It is quite clear, therefore, that this court cannot proceed to pronounce judgment in this casé, for it has no longer jurisdiction of the appeal; and judicial duty is not less fitly performed by declining ungraded jurisdiction than in exercising firmly that which the Constitution and the laws confer.

Counsel seem to have supposed, if effect be given to the repealing act in question, that the whole appellate power of the court, in cases of habeas corpus, is denied. But this is an error. The act of 1868 does not except from that jurisdiction any cases but appeals from Circuit Courts under the act of 1867. It does not affect' the jurisdiction which was previously exercised.*

■ The appeal of the petitioner in this case must be

Dismissed for want-of jurisdiction.