Historical Note: Tapping Reeve, Partisanship and the Federal Judiciary
Today, it seems unimaginable how Reeve would find himself a federal criminal defendant. As in our own era of political battles waged in the federal judicial arena, wanton partisanship by Thomas Jefferson and his followers supplies an explanation.
September 19, 2019 at 03:48 PM
3 minute read
Tapping Reeve of Litchfield is revered in the history of the Connecticut legal system. The founder of the first law school in the United States, Reeve remains to this day a venerated figure in Connecticut legal circles. His law school still stands, a physical testament to the enormous influence it had in the early years of not only Connecticut but the Republic itself. Numerous significant political and legal figures were among its graduates.
Today, it seems unimaginable how Reeve would find himself a federal criminal defendant. As in our own era of political battles waged in the federal judicial arena, wanton partisanship by Thomas Jefferson and his followers supplies the answer.
The election of Jefferson in 1800 was not met with approval in Connecticut which, like Reeve, was solidly Federalist. Reeve was unable to contain his utter distaste for Jefferson and the Republican Party. In 1801, Reeve began a literary campaign against Jefferson in a local Litchfield paper, The Monitor, employing various pseudonyms. The criticisms of Jefferson and his adherents leveled by Reeve included allegations of boiling lust and being sons of Sodom.
In a manner reminiscent of the Federalist prosecution of Republicans under the infamous Sedition Act, the Jeffersonians plotted their revenge. Due to a lack of influence in the Federalist controlled state system, the Jeffersonians turned to the federal courts. In 1806, after skillfully obtaining control of it by patronage, the Jeffersonians launched a politically receptive grand jury to investigate whether Reeve and others had libeled the president in their publications.
The grand jury returned an indictment against Reeve for common law seditious libel based upon his article in the December 2, 1801 edition of The Monitor, under the pseudonym Phocion. There, Reeve accused Jefferson of multiple acts of misconduct including subverting the constitutional rights of citizens, creating anarchy akin to that of the French Revolution, destroying the judiciary and seeking to create himself as a despot. The publisher of The Monitor, Thomas Collier, in addition to others, was also indicted.
Reeve's response to this charge was one of magnificent defiance. He refused to truckle to the efforts of the Jeffersonians to silence him. He continued to write critically about the Jefferson administration in the face of the criminal charge.
Fortunately, the cases against Reeve and others were not aggressively pushed by federal prosecutors. In 1808, a number of the indictments, including Reeve's, were dismissed. One of the remaining cases, United States v. Hudson and Goodwin, which involved the now Hartford Courant, ultimately went to the United States Supreme Court which determined, in 1812, that federal courts' criminal jurisdiction was limited to violations of federal law or provisions of the Constitution. Thus, the federal courts lacked common law criminal jurisdiction, precluding a prosecution on these grounds.
In an era of destructive partisanship, it is important to observe that our politically convulsed era does not own a historical monopoly on the misguided use of the federal judiciary.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllADVANCE Act Offers Conn. Opportunity to Enhance Carbon-Free Energy and Improve Reliability With Advanced Nuclear Technologies
Trending Stories
- 1Restoring Trust in the Courts Starts in New York
- 2'Pull Back the Curtain': Ex-NFL Players Seek Discovery in Lawsuit Over League's Disability Plan
- 3Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
- 4Improper Removal to Fed. Court Leads to $100K Bill for Blue Cross Blue Shield
- 5Michael Halpern, Beloved Key West Attorney, Dies at 72
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250