---
title: "Martin v. Hunter's Lessee — AP Gov Definition & Exam Guide"
description: "Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816) let the Supreme Court review state court rulings on federal questions. An AP Gov 2.9 example of how precedent builds judicial power."
canonical: "https://fiveable.me/ap-gov/key-terms/martin-v-hunters-lessee"
type: "key-term"
subject: "AP US Government"
unit: "Unit 2"
---

# Martin v. Hunter's Lessee — AP Gov Definition & Exam Guide

## Definition

Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816) is the Supreme Court case establishing that the Court can review state court decisions involving federal law and the Constitution, an illustrative example in AP Gov Topic 2.9 of how legal precedent builds the judiciary's legitimacy and power.

## What It Is

Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816) started as a Virginia land dispute, but the real fight was about power. Virginia's highest court basically told the U.S. [Supreme Court](/ap-gov/key-terms/supreme-court "fv-autolink"), "you can't review our decisions." The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that it has appellate jurisdiction over state court decisions whenever those cases involve federal law or the Constitution. In plain terms, if a state court interprets the Constitution, the Supreme Court gets the final word.

In the [AP Gov](/ap-gov "fv-autolink") CED, this case is an illustrative example for [Topic 2.9](/ap-gov/unit-2/legitimacy-judicial-branch/study-guide/VJ8DnmbCug0vKC25idPk "fv-autolink") (Legitimacy of the Judicial Branch) alongside the New Deal court conflict and *United States v. Nixon*. It shows the role of **legal precedent** in judicial decision making. Once *Martin* established federal judicial supremacy over state courts on federal questions, **stare decisis** (courts following precedent in similar cases) locked that rule in. Two centuries later, every appeal from a state supreme court to the U.S. Supreme Court runs on the track *Martin* laid down.

## Why It Matters

This term lives in **[Unit 2](/ap-gov/unit-2 "fv-autolink"): Interactions Among Branches of Government**, specifically **Topic 2.9**, and supports learning objective **2.9.A**: explain the role of [legal precedent](/ap-gov/key-terms/legal-precedent "fv-autolink") in judicial decision making. Here's the thing the exam wants you to see. The judiciary has no army and no budget power, so its legitimacy depends on people accepting its rulings as binding. *Martin* is an early test of that legitimacy. A state court openly defied the Supreme Court, and the Court answered by asserting uniform federal interpretation of the Constitution. Because of stare decisis, that one 1816 decision still structures the entire federal-state judicial relationship. It's the perfect example of how a single precedent, followed consistently, becomes a pillar of institutional power.

## Connections

### Legal Precedent and Stare Decisis (Unit 2)

Martin is the CED's go-to example of [precedent](/ap-gov/key-terms/precedent "fv-autolink") doing heavy lifting. The rule it created (Supreme Court reviews state decisions on federal questions) has been followed for over 200 years, which is stare decisis working exactly as designed.

### [Judicial Independence (Unit 2)](/ap-gov/key-terms/judicial-independence)

Virginia's defiance was a direct challenge to the federal [judiciary](/ap-gov/key-terms/judiciary "fv-autolink")'s authority. By standing firm, the Court showed that judicial power means nothing unless courts can enforce a uniform reading of the Constitution against resistant states.

### [Brown v. Board of Education (Unit 3)](/ap-gov/key-terms/brown-v-board-of-education)

Brown shows the flip side of 2.9.A. Martin demonstrates precedent being followed; Brown demonstrates precedent (Plessy) being overturned. Together they let you argue both halves of how [stare decisis](/ap-gov/key-terms/stare-decisis "fv-autolink") actually works.

### [Checks and Balances (Units 1-2)](/ap-gov/key-terms/checks-and-balances)

Martin is federalism meeting separation of powers. It checks state courts, ensuring fifty different state interpretations of the Constitution can't exist at once. One Constitution, one final interpreter.

## On the AP Exam

Martin v. Hunter's Lessee is an illustrative example in the CED, which means the exam won't require you to recall it by name, but it's fair game as stimulus material or as a precedent in a question stem. Multiple-choice questions tend to test the holding in action. For example, a stem might describe a state court upholding a law against a Fourteenth Amendment challenge and ask where the losing party appeals (answer: the U.S. Supreme Court, because Martin gives it appellate jurisdiction over state decisions on federal questions). Another common angle is precedent itself, like a question describing a state court trying to narrow Martin and asking what that illustrates about stare decisis. On the Argument Essay or a Topic 2.9 concept application FRQ, Martin works as evidence that precedent gives the judiciary durable, legitimate power even though the Court can't enforce its own rulings.

## Martin v. Hunter's Lessee vs Marbury v. Madison

Both are early cases that built the Supreme Court's power, so they blur together fast. Marbury v. Madison (1803) established judicial review, the power to strike down acts of the federal government as unconstitutional. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816) extended the Court's reach in a different direction, establishing its authority to review state court decisions on federal questions. Quick test: Marbury is about the Court versus Congress and the president; Martin is about the Court versus the states.

## Key Takeaways

- Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816) established that the U.S. Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over state court decisions involving federal law or the Constitution.
- It's a CED illustrative example for Topic 2.9 and learning objective 2.9.A, showing how legal precedent shapes judicial decision making.
- The case arose when Virginia's highest court refused to follow a Supreme Court ruling, making it an early test of the federal judiciary's legitimacy.
- Because of stare decisis, the Martin rule still governs today, which is why any state case raising a federal constitutional question can ultimately reach the Supreme Court.
- Don't confuse it with Marbury v. Madison; Marbury created judicial review over federal acts, while Martin asserted Supreme Court authority over state courts.

## FAQs

### What did Martin v. Hunter's Lessee establish?

It established in 1816 that the U.S. Supreme Court can review state court decisions involving federal law or the Constitution. This guaranteed one uniform national interpretation of the Constitution instead of fifty state versions.

### Is Martin v. Hunter's Lessee a required case for AP Gov?

No. It's an illustrative example in Topic 2.9, not one of the 15 required Supreme Court cases. You won't have to recall it cold, but it can appear in question stems, and it's strong evidence for arguments about precedent and judicial legitimacy.

### How is Martin v. Hunter's Lessee different from Marbury v. Madison?

Marbury (1803) gave the Court judicial review, the power to strike down federal laws. Martin (1816) gave the Court appellate authority over state courts on federal questions. Marbury checks the other federal branches; Martin checks the states.

### Why is Martin v. Hunter's Lessee an example of legal precedent?

Its rule has been followed under stare decisis for over two centuries, so every modern appeal from a state supreme court to the U.S. Supreme Court depends on it. The CED uses it to show how one precedent, consistently applied, builds lasting institutional power for the judiciary.

### Can a state court refuse to follow the Supreme Court?

Not on federal questions, and Martin v. Hunter's Lessee is the reason why. Virginia's court tried exactly that in 1816, and the Supreme Court ruled that state court decisions on federal law are subject to its review, a precedent that holds today.

## Related Study Guides

- [2.9 Legitimacy of the Judicial Branch](/ap-gov/unit-2/legitimacy-judicial-branch/study-guide/VJ8DnmbCug0vKC25idPk)

## Structured Data

```json
{"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"LearningResource","@id":"https://fiveable.me/ap-gov/key-terms/martin-v-hunters-lessee#resource","name":"Martin v. Hunter's Lessee — AP Gov Definition & Exam Guide","url":"https://fiveable.me/ap-gov/key-terms/martin-v-hunters-lessee","learningResourceType":"Concept explainer","educationalLevel":"AP® / High School","about":{"@id":"https://fiveable.me/ap-gov/key-terms/martin-v-hunters-lessee#term"},"audience":{"@type":"EducationalAudience","educationalRole":"student"},"dateModified":"2026-06-11T05:53:03.389Z","isPartOf":{"@type":"Collection","name":"AP US Government Key Terms","url":"https://fiveable.me/ap-gov/key-terms"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Fiveable","url":"https://fiveable.me"}},{"@type":"DefinedTerm","@id":"https://fiveable.me/ap-gov/key-terms/martin-v-hunters-lessee#term","name":"Martin v. Hunter's Lessee","description":"Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816) is the Supreme Court case establishing that the Court can review state court decisions involving federal law and the Constitution, an illustrative example in AP Gov Topic 2.9 of how legal precedent builds the judiciary's legitimacy and power.","url":"https://fiveable.me/ap-gov/key-terms/martin-v-hunters-lessee","inDefinedTermSet":{"@type":"DefinedTermSet","name":"AP US Government Key Terms","url":"https://fiveable.me/ap-gov/key-terms"}},{"@type":"FAQPage","mainEntity":[{"@type":"Question","name":"What did Martin v. Hunter's Lessee establish?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"It established in 1816 that the U.S. Supreme Court can review state court decisions involving federal law or the Constitution. This guaranteed one uniform national interpretation of the Constitution instead of fifty state versions."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Is Martin v. Hunter's Lessee a required case for AP Gov?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"No. It's an illustrative example in Topic 2.9, not one of the 15 required Supreme Court cases. You won't have to recall it cold, but it can appear in question stems, and it's strong evidence for arguments about precedent and judicial legitimacy."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"How is Martin v. Hunter's Lessee different from Marbury v. Madison?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Marbury (1803) gave the Court judicial review, the power to strike down federal laws. Martin (1816) gave the Court appellate authority over state courts on federal questions. Marbury checks the other federal branches; Martin checks the states."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Why is Martin v. Hunter's Lessee an example of legal precedent?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Its rule has been followed under stare decisis for over two centuries, so every modern appeal from a state supreme court to the U.S. Supreme Court depends on it. The CED uses it to show how one precedent, consistently applied, builds lasting institutional power for the judiciary."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Can a state court refuse to follow the Supreme Court?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Not on federal questions, and Martin v. Hunter's Lessee is the reason why. Virginia's court tried exactly that in 1816, and the Supreme Court ruled that state court decisions on federal law are subject to its review, a precedent that holds today."}}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"AP US Government","item":"https://fiveable.me/ap-gov"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Key Terms","item":"https://fiveable.me/ap-gov/key-terms"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Unit 2","item":"https://fiveable.me/ap-gov/unit-2"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":4,"name":"Martin v. Hunter's Lessee"}]}]}
```