On November 15, 1811, Story was nominated by President
James Madison to become an
associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, succeeding
William Cushing, The youngest justice at the start of their Supreme Court tenure was
William Johnson, who was six days younger than Story's 32 years, 138 days of age at the start of their respective tenures. Madison had previously nominated
John Quincy Adams to succeed Cushing; Adams was confirmed by the
United States Senate, but had declined to serve. On November 18, 1811, Story was confirmed by the Senate, and he was sworn into office on February 3, 1812. Story's opinion in ''Martin v. Hunter's Lessee'' (1816) was profoundly significant before Story ever so much as addressed the issue explicitly. The manner in which Story framed the American republic is profoundly indicative of his philosophy. Story noted, "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.'" Regarding the nominal issue of the case, whether the Supreme Court possessed appellate jurisdiction over the states, Story argued that the Court must have such jurisdiction. Without national oversight over local courts, the law could become discordant. This fear of discordant law was part of Story's belief in legal science, in this instance manifested as a belief in the uniformity of law. Without uniformity, each state would be allowed to develop its own idiosyncrasies, and such provincialism ran contrary to Story's aim of a national republic. Story cited the Constitution's assertion to be "The supreme law of the land" and that "Judges in every state shall be bound thereby". The case came to symbolize a profound transformation in Story's tenure on the Court. Initially Marshall's most influential ally, Story enjoyed the success that came along with the nearly uniform agreement by the justices in Marshall's Court. Following the election of
Andrew Jackson in 1828, Story gradually became out of step with the rest of the Court. The transition started with the subsequent appointments to the bench of
John McLean in 1829,
Henry Baldwin in 1830, and
James Wayne in 1835. This was further aggravated by the death of Marshall and the appointment in 1836 of
Roger Taney, another Jacksonian Democrat, as the Chief Justice. Story was forced to come to grips with his new position in the Jacksonian court in
Proprietors of the Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of Warren Bridge. This 1837 case involved the grant from the Massachusetts legislature, of a 40-year charter of a bridge to a group of private citizens over the Charles river. This grant was made with the provision that after the investors collected tolls for 40 years, the bridge would fall into public hands. The success of the Charles River Bridge, coupled with the growth of the cities of Boston and Charlestown, led the Massachusetts legislature to prompt the creation of the Warren Bridge, in almost the exact location, but free of toll. The creation of a new toll-free bridge, next to the previous one, was objectionable to the owners of the previous bridge, who launched a suit claiming the creation of a new bridge violated their rights. On February 14, 1837, the Court ruled 5–2 in favor of the Warren Bridge, rejecting the petitioners' claim that their charter granted them exclusive rights. Story, writing for the minority, noted "I stand upon the old law." One of Story's more vexing opinions was
Prigg v. Pennsylvania, in which he wrote for the majority in 1842. Story was forced to consider the constitutionality of a Pennsylvania
personal liberty law which placed procedural requirements on those seeking to extradite fugitive slaves. Story, despite his hatred of slavery, sided with the southern justices to declare the Pennsylvania law unconstitutional. This appears especially hard to square with Story's anti-slavery philosophy, as one of the individuals kidnapped by Edward Prigg, the slave catcher in question, was actually not a slave at all. However, despite the outcome appearing entirely in favor of the South, a more accurate assessment can be gleaned from the text and time period. Concerning the former, Story argued that fugitive slaves were addressed in the U.S. Constitution, Art. 4, § 2. Despite the fact that slavery was not mentioned, Story concluded that it was all too clear that the clause was meant to secure runaway slaves for southern slaveholders. He went on to note, "The full recognition of the right and title was indispensable to the security of this species of property in all the slaveholding States; and, indeed, was so vital to the preservation of their domestic interests and institutions, that it cannot be doubted that it constituted a fundamental article, without the adoption of which the Union could not have been formed." Story's apparent endorsement of slaveholders' rights must be read through this light: that the justice felt that this was a bargain integral to the Constitution. Consequently, Story had an obligation to honor the deal struck at the Constitutional Convention. Further insight is provided by the political activity of southerners of the day. H. Robert Baker notes, "Story chose the path that he believed best supported a strong Union and rejected the natural right of slaveholders to the people they claimed as property. His resonating opinion answered southern constitutional claims in ways that protected slaveholders' rights, but not on the terms they wanted." Though embroiled in a struggle with Chief Justice
Roger Taney, Story achieved his last great victory in
Swift v. Tyson. This 1842 case concerned a bill of exchange, essentially a promise of payment, given from a businessman in New York, in exchange for land in Maine. However, the individuals who received the bill of exchange, Jarius Keith and Nathaniel Norton, did not own the land in question. The central issue of the case focused on Article 34 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 which established that the Court was to employ state statutes as authoritative rules when they were applicable for the Court's cases. Story, ever the nationalist, had long despised using state statutes as authoritative when he deemed federal common law a much more preferable alternative. Simply put, Story longed to place more power in the hands of judges, in particular federal judges, instead of local legislatures. Though Story, writing for the unanimous majority, rejected the fraudulent Bill of Exchange, this remains less significant than his development of federal common law. As aforementioned, section 34 of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 held that courts were bound to local state statutes. Story, though had long desired to establish federal common law, had been unable to sway sufficient support to the cause. In
Swift he finally rallied sufficient support to chip away at the barrier. He noted that "[Section 34 of the Judiciary Act], upon its true intendment and construction, is strictly limited to local statutes and local usages of the character before stated, and does not extend to contracts and other instruments of a commercial nature..." ''Swift's
ultimate overruling in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins'' marked a turning point in American civil procedure. In 1829, he moved from Salem to Cambridge and became the first Dane Professor of Law at
Harvard University, meeting with remarkable success as a teacher and winning the affection of his students, who had the benefit of learning from a sitting Supreme Court justice. He was a prolific writer, publishing many reviews and magazine articles, delivering orations on public occasions, and publishing books on legal subjects which won high praise on both sides of the Atlantic. Among Story's works of this period, one of the most important is the Justice's
Commentaries on the Constitution. The commentaries are divided into three sections, the first two concerning the colonial origins of the confederation and revolution, and the final section concerns the origins of the Constitution. Story's
Commentaries encapsulate and expound his ideology. Within his
Commentaries, Story, in particular, attacks notions of state sovereignty. Even at this moment when his time on the Court was drawing towards a close, Story remained concerned with the welfare of the Union. His guide to the Constitution stressed the sovereignty of the people rather than the states, and extensively attacked those elements,
i.e., southern sovereignty advocates, that Story felt could destabilize the Union. Story's
Commentaries summarize much of the Justice's philosophy and demonstrate how Story sought to use his work off the bench to continue to foster popular sovereignty over state sovereignty. Many legal scholars attribute the development of
remittitur in American law – a procedural device by which the trial judge can reduce a jury's damages award in a civil suit on the grounds that it is excessive – to Story's decision in the 1822 case
Blunt v. Little (in which Story was sitting on the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts). While
remittitur was already known from English law, Story was the first to allow the procedure to be used on the initiative of the defendant and on the grounds of excessive damages – in prior use, it had only been used by plaintiffs to correct legal errors in a jury award (awarding more damages than was legally permitted) which might have resulted in the award being overturned on appeal. Story's innovation was enormously influential in American law and has been accepted throughout the federal and state courts. ==Significance==