John Jay - The Jay Court

The Jay Court

In September 1789, George Washington offered the position of Secretary of State (which, though technically a new position, would have continued Jay's service as Secretary of Foreign Affairs); he declined. Washington responded by offering him the new title—which Washington stated "must be regarded as the keystone of our political fabric"—as Chief Justice of the United States, which Jay accepted. Washington officially nominated Jay on September 24, 1789, the same day he signed the Judiciary Act of 1789 (which created the position of Chief Justice) into law. Jay was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate on September 26, 1789, and received his commission the same day. His term began with his taking the oath of office on October 19, 1789. Washington also nominated John Blair, William Cushing, James Wilson, James Iredell and John Rutledge as Associate Judges; Jay would later serve with Thomas Johnson, who took Rutledge's seat, and William Paterson, who took Johnson's seat.

The Court's business through its first three years primarily involved the establishment of rules and procedure; reading of commissions and admission of attorneys to the bar; and the Justices' duties in "riding circuit," or presiding over cases in the circuit courts of the various federal judicial districts. No convention existed that precluded the involvement of Supreme Court Justices in political affairs, and Jay used his light workload as a Justice to freely participate in the business of Washington's administration. He used his circuit riding to spread word throughout the states of Washington's commitment to neutrality, then published reports of French minister Edmond-Charles Genet's campaign to win American support for France. However, Jay also established an early precedent for the Court's independence in 1790, when Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton wrote to Jay requesting the Court's endorsement of legislation that would assume the debts of the states. Jay replied that the Court's business was restricted to ruling on the constitutionality of cases being tried before it and refused to allow it to take a position either for or against the legislation.