Changes

The Jay Court had little business through its first three years.<ref name="society">{{cite web|url=http://www.supremecourthistory.org/02_history/subs_history/02_c01.html|title=The Jay Court ... 1789-1793|work=The Supreme Court Historical Society|language=English|accessdate=2008-08-21}}</ref>

The Jay Court had little business through its first three years.<ref name="society">{{cite web|url=http://www.supremecourthistory.org/02_history/subs_history/02_c01.html|title=The Jay Court ... 1789-1793|work=The Supreme Court Historical Society|language=English|accessdate=2008-08-21}}</ref>

In ''[[Chisholm v. Georgia]]'', the Jay Court had to answer the question: "Was the state of Georgia subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the federal government?"<ref name="chisholmoyez">{{cite web|work=The Oyez Project|title=Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793)|url=http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1793/1793_0/|accessdate=2008-08-21|language=English}}</ref> In a 4-1 ruling (Iredell dissented), the Jay Court ruled in favor of two [[South Carolina]]n [[Loyalist (American Revolution)|Loyalists]] who had had their land seized by Georgia. The ruling, which was unpopular amongst the populace, was overturned by the Senate with the [[Eleventh Amendment]] (it dictated that the judiciary could not rule on cases where a state was being sued by a citizen of another state or foreign country).<ref name="society"/><ref name="jayuni">{{cite web|url=http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/jay/biography.html|title=A Brief Biography of John Jay|publisher=Columbia University|year=2002|language=English|work=The Papers of John Jay}}</ref> The case was brought again to the Supreme Court in ''[[Georgia v. Brailsford]]'', and the Court reversed its decision.<ref>{{cite web|title=Georgia v. Brailsford, Powell & Hopton, 3 U.S. 3 Dall. 1 1 (1794)|work=Oyez & Justia|url=http://supreme.justia.com/us/3/1/index.html|language=English|accessdate=2008-08-21}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://jay.thefreelibrary.com/|work=The Free Library|publisher=Farlex|language=English|title=John Jay (1745 - 1829)|accessdate=2008-08-21}}</ref> However, Jay's original Chisholm decision established that states were subject to [[judicial review]].<ref name="chisholmoyez"/><ref>Johnson (2000)</ref>

In ''[[Chisholm v. Georgia]]'', the Jay Court had to answer the question: "Was the state of Georgia subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the federal government?"<ref name="chisholmoyez">{{cite web|work=The Oyez Project|title=Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793)|url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1793/1793_0/|accessdate=2008-08-21|language=English}}</ref> In a 4-1 ruling (Iredell dissented), the Jay Court ruled in favor of two [[South Carolina]]n [[Loyalist (American Revolution)|Loyalists]] who had had their land seized by Georgia. The ruling, which was unpopular amongst the populace, was overturned by the Senate with the [[Eleventh Amendment]] (it dictated that the judiciary could not rule on cases where a state was being sued by a citizen of another state or foreign country).<ref name="society"/><ref name="jayuni">{{cite web|url=http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/jay/biography.html|title=A Brief Biography of John Jay|publisher=Columbia University|year=2002|language=English|work=The Papers of John Jay}}</ref> The case was brought again to the Supreme Court in ''[[Georgia v. Brailsford]]'', and the Court reversed its decision.<ref>{{cite web|title=Georgia v. Brailsford, Powell & Hopton, 3 U.S. 3 Dall. 1 1 (1794)|work=Oyez & Justia|url=http://supreme.justia.com/us/3/1/index.html|language=English|accessdate=2008-08-21}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://jay.thefreelibrary.com/|work=The Free Library|publisher=Farlex|language=English|title=John Jay (1745 - 1829)|accessdate=2008-08-21}}</ref> However, Jay's original Chisholm decision established that states were subject to [[judicial review]].<ref name="chisholmoyez"/><ref>Johnson (2000)</ref>

{{cquote|[T]he people are the sovereign of this country, and consequently that fellow citizens and joint sovereigns cannot be degraded by appearing with each other in their own courts to have their controversies determined. The people have reason to prize and rejoice in such valuable privileges, and they ought not to forget that nothing but the free course of constitutional law and government can ensure the continuance and enjoyment of them. For the reasons before given, I am clearly of opinion that a State is suable by citizens of another State.|5=John Jay in the Court Opinion of Chisholm v. Georgia<ref>{{cite web|url=http://supreme.justia.com/us/2/419/case.html|title=CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA, 2 U. S. 419 (1793) (Court Opinion)|work=Justia & Oyez|language=English|accessdate=2008-08-21}}</ref>}}

{{cquote|[T]he people are the sovereign of this country, and consequently that fellow citizens and joint sovereigns cannot be degraded by appearing with each other in their own courts to have their controversies determined. The people have reason to prize and rejoice in such valuable privileges, and they ought not to forget that nothing but the free course of constitutional law and government can ensure the continuance and enjoyment of them. For the reasons before given, I am clearly of opinion that a State is suable by citizens of another State.|5=John Jay in the Court Opinion of Chisholm v. Georgia<ref>{{cite web|url=http://supreme.justia.com/us/2/419/case.html|title=CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA, 2 U. S. 419 (1793) (Court Opinion)|work=Justia & Oyez|language=English|accessdate=2008-08-21}}</ref>}}