Samuel Chase arrived on the Court trailing forty years of tumult — an Annapolis Son of Liberty, a signer of the Declaration of Independence for Maryland, a wartime congressman whose scheme to corner the flour market on confidential congressional knowledge drew Alexander Hamilton's blistering 'Publius' letters, and an Anti-Federalist ('Caution') who voted against ratifying the Constitution. By the 1790s he had swung to fierce Federalism, and Washington — overlooking the record — named the chief judge of Maryland's General Court to the Supreme Court in 1796. He proved the ablest judicial mind of the pre-Marshall bench.
In three years Chase wrote the early Court's most enduring opinions: Ware v. Hylton (treaties override conflicting state law), Hylton v. United States (the carriage tax sustained — judicial review of Congress in practice, seven years before Marbury), and Calder v. Bull (ex post facto means criminal laws only, with its famous appeal to natural justice against Iredell's (§6) positivism). Then partisanship nearly undid him. His conduct of the Callender and Fries trials and an 1803 Baltimore grand-jury charge warning of 'mobocracy' led the Jeffersonian House to impeach him in 1804; the Senate acquitted on March 1, 1805, Aaron Burr presiding — settling that judges are not removable for their politics. No justice has been impeached since. He died in office in 1811.
Ware v. Hylton
1796Holding · The 1783 Treaty of Paris overrides Virginia's wartime confiscation of debts owed to British creditors; a national treaty prevails over conflicting state law.
Role · Chase wrote the leading seriatim opinion.
The founding statement of treaty supremacy — argued and lost by John Marshall (§13), in his only appearance as an advocate before the Court he would later lead.
Read the opinion →Hylton v. United States
1796Holding · Congress's tax on carriages is an excise, not a 'direct tax' requiring apportionment among the states.
Role · Chase wrote one of the seriatim opinions sustaining the tax.
The Court weighed the constitutionality of an act of Congress seven years before Marbury — judicial review in practice before it had a name.
Read the opinion →Calder v. Bull
1798Holding · The Constitution's ex post facto clauses reach only retroactive criminal laws, not civil legislation.
Role · Chase wrote the lead seriatim opinion.
His declaration that 'the great first principles of the social compact' limit legislatures even without express text — and Iredell's (§6) positivist reply — opened a debate over natural law and judicial power that has never closed.
Read the opinion →Stormy Patriot: The Life of Samuel Chase (1980) by James Haw, Francis F. Beirne, Rosamond R. Beirne, and R. Samuel Jett (Maryland Historical Society) — the standard modern biography and the natural place to begin. No later work has replaced it as the fullest narrative of Chase's life, though it predates the modern scholarship on judicial independence; Presser and Perlin are essential companions.
The Bookshelf
Written by four Maryland historians, Stormy Patriot follows Chase from provincial Annapolis and Revolutionary politics through the Continental Congress, state judgeships, Supreme Court service, and impeachment. Especially strong on Maryland institutions, personality, and the long political career that made Chase both influential and combustible.
The best concise, Court-centered introduction — Chase's Federalist understanding of judicial duty, his opinions in Hylton and Calder v. Bull, his circuit work, and the conduct that culminated in impeachment. Openly revisionist (the "apologist" is Presser himself); most valuable read as a sustained challenge to the conventional portrait. NYU Press.
The strongest sustained modern reassessment of Chase as a jurist, contending that the impeachment has obscured his legal ability — his positions on judicial review, natural law, jury trials, treason, sedition, and federal judicial power. Particularly valuable for Calder v. Bull; deliberately revisionist, to be tested against Perlin and the trial record.
The most detailed modern legal study of the impeachment: the eight articles, the competing constitutional theories, the Senate votes, and the uncertain meaning of judicial independence in the early republic. Perlin argues the acquittal did more than protect judges from partisan removal — it helped establish expectations of political restraint on the bench.
The classic political history of the Jeffersonian assault on the Federalist judiciary — the strongest broad context for the impeachment, placing the trial alongside the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801, Stuart v. Laird, and the struggle over the federal courts' place in the constitutional order. Oxford University Press.
A lucid narrative comparison of the Chase and Andrew Johnson impeachments — by a sitting Chief Justice. The best book-length introduction focused primarily on the impeachment: the political setting, principal advocates, Senate proceedings, and constitutional stakes, without assuming specialist knowledge. A justice writing the history of the only justice ever impeached.
A compact legal history of the proceedings that produced the impeachment — the Fries and Callender trials, Chase's treatment of counsel and juries, the Baltimore grand-jury charge, and the Senate case. Valuable for its clear chronology and close attention to actual courtroom conduct.
The central contemporary record of the Senate trial, taken in shorthand by two reporters: the articles of impeachment, Chase's extensive answer, witness testimony, and the arguments of John Randolph, Luther Martin, and the other advocates. Indispensable, because later accounts often compress or selectively characterize the prosecution and defense. Free at the Internet Archive.
The essential collection for Chase's appointment and first years on the bench — background to Calder, Ware v. Hylton, Hylton, and the Fries proceedings. The series ends in 1800, so it does not cover the Callender trial, the Baltimore charge, or the impeachment itself.
Presser's full-length book — the work behind the two shorter Presser pieces on this shelf — and the leading revisionist interpretation of Chase: not a partisan bully but the most serious Federalist legal thinker on the early bench, working from English models his Jeffersonian enemies refused to recognize. Carolina Academic Press.
The only other full-length life of Chase besides Stormy Patriot — published the same year, from a small Indiana press, and fuller on the judicial career and the impeachment trial. Harder to find, worth the hunt for the Chase-obsessed.
The standard scholarly history of early American impeachment — colonial precedents, state practice, and the federal experiments — culminating in the Chase trial. The context volume that explains why the Senate's 1805 acquittal settled the question for good. Yale University Press.
The leading political-science account of the impeachment — what the Jeffersonians were actually trying to build, and how the acquittal fixed the boundaries of judicial independence that have held since. Pairs with Rehnquist's Grand Inquests as the analytical counterpart to the narrative.
The Reading Path
A researched route through the literature — in order.
- 1.Haw et al., Stormy Patriot — for the complete life, Maryland setting, and overall narrative
- 2.Presser's Seriatim chapter — for the clearest Court-centered overview and the essential revisionist interpretation
- 3.Presser's Vanderbilt article — for the expanded treatment of Chase's jurisprudence and rule-of-law arguments
- 4.Ellis — for the wider Jeffersonian campaign against the federal judiciary
- 5.Perlin — for the impeachment, the competing constitutional arguments, and judicial independence
- 6.Rehnquist — for an accessible, legally informed narrative of the Senate trial
- 7.Bair & Coblentz — for the Fries and Callender proceedings and the road to impeachment
- 8.Smith & Lloyd's trial record — for the articles, testimony, and arguments in the participants' own words
- 9.The Documentary History — for original records of Chase's appointment and early Court years