Martin v. Hunter Tenant is a case heard by the Supreme Court involving a land dispute. Lord Thomas Fairfax was a British Loyalist and landowner in Virginia during the American Revolution. Virginia enacted legislation during the war that allowed the seizure of lands held by those loyal to the English and took ownership of Lord Fairfax. Virginia then granted ownership of a tract of the seized property to David Hunter. After the war ended, the United States and Great Britain agreed to a treaty in which the United States guaranteed to protect ownership of lands held by British Loyalists. When Lord Fairfax died, his nephew, Thomas Martin, inherited the Lord's land holdings and subsequently sued Virginia to recover the property taken during the American Revolution. Martin won in state court, and Hunter appealed to the Virginia Court of Appeals where the lower court's decision was overturned. Martin then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that because the treaty superseded state law, Martin was the rightful owner of the land and sent the case back to the Virginia Court of Appeals to make a decision in Martin's favor. The Virginia Court of Appeals refused to comply with the Supreme Court's decision and questioned the Court's jurisdiction in cases decided by a state court. The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether or not the Supreme Court had appellate jurisdiction over a state court in matters involving federal law. In other words, did the Supreme Court have the power to hear appeals in cases involving federal law decided by a state court? The Court held that it had the jurisdiction granted by the Constitution. Article III,... middle of paper...legal precedents. This decision confirmed the supremacy of the Supreme Court as the sole decision-making body for the interpretation of federal law and constitutional issues. Ex parte McCardle is the only branch of Congress that acts to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This case affirmed the constitutionally granted power of Congress to make such exceptions as it deems necessary and to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. West Coast Hotel Company v. Parrish is important because it allows the judiciary to decide issues that have developed based on changes that have occurred in society since the Constitution was written. The framers of the Constitution could not predict how society would change over time, but they recognized it. This decision provides the judiciary with the means to apply what is written in the Constitution to an ever-changing world.