# Henry Baldwin (judge) *Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1830–1844* Henry Baldwin (January 14, 1780 – April 21, 1844) sat as an Associate Justice of the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] from January 6, 1830, to April 21, 1844, the day of his death.[^1] Before joining the Court he practiced law in Pittsburgh and represented Pennsylvania in Congress as a member of the Democratic-Republican Party. In 1828 President Andrew Jackson nominated him for Secretary of the Treasury.[^1] His documented work on the bench includes several rulings and opinions. He was the only dissenter in *United States v. The Amistad*. He dissented on jurisdictional grounds in *Worcester v. Georgia*. In *Groves v. Slaughter* he stated that slaves were property under the Constitution. His circuit-court reading of the Privileges and Immunities Clause in *Magill v. Brown* was later adopted by the Supreme Court.[^1] The available account records these opinions and their dates. It does not establish his reasons for them.[^1] ## Early life and education According to Wikipedia, Baldwin's family was of aristocratic British descent going back to the 1600s.[^1] His parents were Michael Baldwin and Theodora Walcott, and he was born in New Haven, Connecticut. Abraham Baldwin, a signer of the United States Constitution, was his half-brother.[^1] After attending Hopkins School, he graduated from Yale College with a B.A. in 1797, at the age of 17. At Yale he belonged to the Brothers in Unity society. He then studied at Litchfield Law School and read law in 1798.[^1] Baldwin moved to Pittsburgh and built a successful legal practice there. He invested in iron furnaces north of the city, and those investments took him to Crawford County, Pennsylvania. He became the newly created county's first district attorney and held the office from 1799 to 1801.[^1] He also published *The Tree of Liberty*, a newspaper aligned with the Democratic-Republicans.[^1] His first wife, Marana Norton, died, and he later married Sally Ellicott.[^1] ## Political career In 1816 Baldwin was elected to Congress as a Democratic-Republican from Pennsylvania's 14th congressional district. He won reelection twice and resigned in May 1822, citing poor health.[^1] Wikipedia records that before he left Congress, he advised that it drop an investigation of military aggression in Florida, which that account describes as "unsanctioned." The same account treats this as the beginning of his alliance with General Jackson.[^1] Wikipedia links Jackson's 1828 nomination of Baldwin as Secretary of the Treasury to Baldwin's political work in Pennsylvania and his advisory role in the 1824 and 1828 presidential campaigns.[^1] John Calhoun, then Vice President, blocked Jackson's first attempt at the nomination in the Senate. The main reason was Baldwin's support for a high-tariff policy.[^1] The same source states that Baldwin held the post until late 1829.[^1] ## Views Baldwin took part in a number of cases involving slavery. In *Johnson v. Tompkins*, 13 F. Cas. 840 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1833), he told the jury that slavery's existence "is abhorrent to all our ideas of natural right and justice." He also instructed them that they were nonetheless bound to respect its legal status.[^1] In *United States v. The Amistad*, Justice [[Joseph Story]] delivered the Court's decision freeing the 36 kidnapped African adults and children held aboard the schooner *La Amistad*. Baldwin was the only member of the Court to dissent.[^1] In *Groves v. Slaughter*, 40 U.S. (15 Pet.) 449 (1841), he took the position that, as a matter of constitutional law, slaves are property and not persons.[^1] Baldwin construed the Privileges and Immunities Clause in a circuit case, *Magill v. Brown*, 16 Fed. Cas. 408 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1833). He wrote: "We must take it therefore as a grant by the people of the state in convention, to the citizens of all the other states of the Union, of the privileges and immunities of the citizens of this state."[^1] Wikipedia states that the Supreme Court eventually adopted this reading and still holds it.[^1] Speaking for the Court in *Rhode Island v. Massachusetts*, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 657, 751 (1838), he repeated the reading in dictum. There he wrote that each State "by the Constitution has agreed that those of any other state shall enjoy rights, privileges, and immunities in each, as its own do."[^1] His opinions and his treatise ran against the overarching influence of Chief Justice [[John Marshall]]. Even so, Baldwin was Marshall's friend and admirer. He wrote that "no commentator ever followed the text more faithfully."[^1] ## Critical cases ### *Worcester v. Georgia* (1832) The case concerned one of Georgia's "Indian laws," which barred white men from living in Cherokee territory without a license from the state. Samuel Worcester and Elizur Butler were missionaries living among the Cherokees, and they were arrested under that statute in March 1831.[^1] The Superior Court of Gwinnett County released them on the ground that they were federal employees exempt from the law. They were then arrested again, convicted and sentenced to four years in prison. They refused a pardon and appealed to the Supreme Court.[^1] Georgia never appeared before the Court. It announced publicly that it would disregard any decree overturning the conviction.[^1] The Court ruled on March 3, 1832, that the Georgia statutes were unconstitutional as applied to the Cherokee tribes. Marshall wrote for himself and Justices Duvall, Story and Thompson, and Justice McLean concurred. Justice Johnson was absent because of illness.[^1] Baldwin dissented on the ground that the Court lacked jurisdiction.[^1] ## A General View of the Origin and Nature of the Constitution and Government of the United States (1837) Wikipedia describes Baldwin's 1837 treatise as an acknowledgment that his jurisprudence was inconsistent. In it he wrote: "I am well aware of departing from the modern mode of construing our ancient charters."[^1] The book covers territorial rights, the Articles of Confederation, state sovereignty, contract cases and the definition of a corporation. Its treatment of constitutional questions begins with the founding of the nation.[^1] The treatise treats English common law as a "standard rule by which to measure the different parts of the Supreme Law." It describes the federal government as holding a defined grant of power. According to Wikipedia, it pushes back against Marshall's expansive use of the Constitution.[^1] Story regarded the book as imposing "severe strictures" on his own *Commentaries on the Constitution* and on the Constitution itself.[^1] ## Death and legacy Physical and mental health problems affected Baldwin's years on the Court.[^1] The scholar G. Edward White has suggested that Baldwin's lack of "any historical reputation" comes from his "incoherence as a jurist." Wikipedia describes that view as the general consensus of modern scholarship on his 15-year term.[^1] The most favorable assessments call him an "unyielding champion of the Constitution and the federal system." The same assessments also label him a "political maverick."[^1] William J. Novak, a historian at the [[University of Chicago]], has written that "Baldwin's jurisprudence has been treated rather shabbily by historians."[^1] Baldwin was paralyzed in his later years and died a pauper at the age of 64.[^1] He was first buried at Oak Hill Cemetery in Washington, D.C. His remains were later moved to Greendale Cemetery in Meadville, Pennsylvania.[^1] The borough of Baldwin, Pennsylvania, bears his name. His home is now a museum and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.[^1] ## In the Minnesota record The project's record contains no entry linking Baldwin to [[Minnesota]]. The federal action against the State that this wiki tracks is summarized here for reference. ### What On January 14, 2026, the [[United States Department of Justice]] issued release No. 26-21. It was titled "United States Department of Justice Files Lawsuit Against Minnesota's 'Affirmative Action' Regime." The release states that Attorney General Pamela Bondi certified the case as a matter of general public importance.[^2] The complaint in *[[United States v. State of Minnesota (0:26-cv-00273)]]*, No. 0:26-cv-00273 (D. Minn.), was brought under [[Title VII]] of the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]]. It cites [[Minn. Stat. § 43A.191]] eight times. Among the provisions it cites is subdivision 3(c), which requires an agency to explain its reason for hiring a non-affirmative candidate.[^3] ### When The complaint was filed on January 14, 2026, the same date as the release.[^3] The year before, in *[[Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services]]*, 605 U.S. 303 (2025), the Supreme Court held that Title VII's disparate-treatment provision "draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs." The Court also rejected the Sixth Circuit's heightened "background circumstances" rule for majority-group plaintiffs.[^4] ## Notes [^1]: Wikipedia contributors, *Henry Baldwin (judge)*, revision 1353589583 (retrieved 2026-10-26) — dates of service and death, early life, congressional and Treasury career, opinions, treatise, legacy and burial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Baldwin_(judge) [^2]: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, *United States Department of Justice Files Lawsuit Against Minnesota's 'Affirmative Action' Regime*, release No. 26-21 (Jan. 14, 2026) — title of the release; Attorney General's certification of general public importance. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-department-justice-files-lawsuit-against-minnesotas-affirmative-action-regime [^3]: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, *Complaint, United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-00273 (filed Jan. 14, 2026) — Title VII basis; eight citations of Minn. Stat. § 43A.191, including subd. 3(c). https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1423361/dl [^4]: Supreme Court of the United States, *Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services*, 605 U.S. 303 (2025) — holding on majority-group plaintiffs under Title VII; rejection of the "background circumstances" rule. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1039_c0n2.pdf