In ''[[Hayburn's Case]]'', the Jay Court ruled that courts could not comply with a federal statute that required the courts to decide whether individual petitioning [[American Revolution]] veterans qualified for pensions. The Jay Court ruled that determining whether petitioners qualified was an "act ... not of a judicial nature".<ref name="hayburnopinion">{{cite web|work=Justia and Oyez|language=English|title=HAYBURN'S CASE, 2 U. S. 409 (1792)|url=http://supreme.justia.com/us/2/409/case.html|accessdate=2008-08-22}}</ref> and that because the statute allowed the [[United States Congress|legislature]] and the [[Executive Branch]] to revise the courts ruling, the statute violated the [[separation of powers]] as dictated by the [[United States Constitution]].<ref name="hayburnopinion"/><ref>{{cite web|author=Robert J Pushaw Jr|work=Georgetown Law Journal|publisher=Bnet|language=English|url=Georgetown Law Journal|title=Why the Supreme Court never gets any "Dear John" letters: Advisory opinions in historical perspective|accessdate=2008-08-22}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|work=Novelguide.com|url=http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/dah_04/dah_04_01862.html|title=HAYBURN'S CASE|language=English|accessdate=2008-08-22}}</ref> | In ''[[Hayburn's Case]]'', the Jay Court ruled that courts could not comply with a federal statute that required the courts to decide whether individual petitioning [[American Revolution]] veterans qualified for pensions. The Jay Court ruled that determining whether petitioners qualified was an "act ... not of a judicial nature".<ref name="hayburnopinion">{{cite web|work=Justia and Oyez|language=English|title=HAYBURN'S CASE, 2 U. S. 409 (1792)|url=http://supreme.justia.com/us/2/409/case.html|accessdate=2008-08-22}}</ref> and that because the statute allowed the [[United States Congress|legislature]] and the [[Executive Branch]] to revise the courts ruling, the statute violated the [[separation of powers]] as dictated by the [[United States Constitution]].<ref name="hayburnopinion"/><ref>{{cite web|author=Robert J Pushaw Jr|work=Georgetown Law Journal|publisher=Bnet|language=English|url=Georgetown Law Journal|title=Why the Supreme Court never gets any "Dear John" letters: Advisory opinions in historical perspective|accessdate=2008-08-22}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|work=Novelguide.com|url=http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/dah_04/dah_04_01862.html|title=HAYBURN'S CASE|language=English|accessdate=2008-08-22}}</ref> |