Den ex dem. Murray v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co.

1. The facts of this case are extremely difficult to understand from the case report. Here is a brief description from the "Oxford Reference." "The notorious Samuel Swartwout had embezzled $1.5 million in customs receipts and used the monies to purchase land. The Treasury Department issued distress warrants (a non-judicial procedure) to void the land sales and recover the funds. Swartwout and purchasers of the lands challenged the proceedings as a violation of due process and the separation of powers."

2. The court appears to hold that, at least in certain circumstances, Congress can give the executive branch unreviewable authority to make determinations that affect the rights of individuals. Can you tell from the opinion what those circumstances are?  How much does it depend on analogies to proceedings in Merry Olde England? How much does it depend on traditions followed by the states or the federal government at the time of the founding? If I told you that most of modern administrative law is built on this case, what would you say?

3. Nishimura Ekiu uses this case to support its holding that executive officials can decide who is admitted to the United States and that a court can not provide habeas relief. Does this case really support that perspective?