8. Should the Circuit Court decide for or against its jurisdiction, should it dismiss the suit, or give judgment against the State, might not its decision be revised in the Supreme Court? The question is, whether the party setting up the claim, is to be turned out of Court, without being heard upon the merits of his case. They give to the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. But should we in this be mistaken, the error does not affect the case now before the Court. Why is it in cases, in which individuals are parties in a State Court, that the judgment may be revised in this Court? Does it purport to authorize the Corporation to force the sale of these lottery tickets in States where such sales may be prohibited by law? This is a writ of error to a judgment rendered in the Court of Hustings for the borough of Norfolk, on an information for selling lottery tickets, contrary to an act of the Legislature of Virginia. As to the first point: it is conceded by all, that the Federal Government is one of limited powers. This clause extends the jurisdiction of the Court to all the cases described, without making in its terms any exception whatever, and without any regard to the condition of the party. The point of view in which this writ of error, with its citation, has been considered uniformly in the Courts of the Union has been well illustrated by a reference to the course of this Court in suits instituted by the United States. There is nothing in the constitution which prohibits the exercise of such a controlling authority. If one citizen should convey to another citizen of the District, land lying in Virginia, in conformity with the District law, upon the principle now contended for, the party must recover, in the teeth of the law of Virginia. Mr. Smyth stated, that he should support the motion to dismiss the writ of error granted in this case, for two causes: (1.) The defendant in error moves to dismiss this writ, for want of jurisdiction. But if it be said, that as the dominion over the District flows from the same source with every other power possessed by the government of the Union, as it is executed by the same Congress, as it was created for the common good, and for universal purposes, that it must be of equal obligation throughout the Union in its effects, with any power known to the constitution; from whence it is inferred, that the law in question can encounter no geographical impediments, but that its march is through the Union: The answer is, that the federal powers of Congress, in their execution, encounter no geographical impediments, because no limits, short of the boundaries of the Union, are prescribed to them; but the legislative power over the District, in its execution, does encounter geographical impediments, because the limits of the District are distinctly prescribed, as the bound of its extent, and as an insurmountable barrier to its further march. But if the Court should be of opinion, that the statute or act of the General Assembly of the State of Virginia, prohibiting such sale, is valid, notwithstanding the said acts of Congress, then judgment to be entered, that the defendants are guilty, and that the Commonwealth recover against them one hundred dollars and costs. But the words of the judiciary act are pursued by this writ of error, as they always have been in other cases.
In the State Court, the defendant claimed the protection of an act of Congress. But a case to which a State is a party may arise under the constitution or a law of the United States.

And is it then derogatory to the sovereignty of a particular State, that its judgments should be liable to be controlled in the same manner, in cases within the judicial power of the Union? The laws must be executed by individuals acting within the several States. The constitution in direct terms gives an appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in all the enumerated cases of federal cognizance in which it is not to have an original one, without a single expression to confine its operation to the inferior federal Courts. It would be hazarding too much to assert, that the judicatures of the States will be exempt from the prejudices by which the legislatures and people are influenced, and will constitute perfectly impartial tribunals. But if any one State shall refuse to elect them, the Senate will not, on that account, be the less capable of performing all its functions. Whenever a question arises, whether a law passed by Congress is a law of the United States, we have only to inquire whether it is constitutionally passed in execution of any of the federal powers: if it be, it is properly a law of the United States; since the federal powers are co-extensive with the limits of the United States; and this, though the particular act, may be confined to certain persons, places or things. In reasoning upon it as an abstract question, there would, probably, exist no contrariety of opinion respecting it. and how is this examination to be had but by taking jurisdiction of the case?

The acts of Congress must be passed in pursuance of the constitution, or they are void. It is immaterial for the present purpose whether the claim be well or ill founded. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment prevented the conviction of Paul Robert Cohen for the crime of disturbing the peace by wearing a jacket displaying "Fuck the Draft" in the public corridors of a California courthouse.. A general interest might well be felt in leaving to a State the full power of consulting its convenience in the adjustment of its debts or of other claims upon it, but no interest could be felt in so changing the relations between the whole and its parts as to strip the government of the means of protecting, by the instrumentality of its Courts, the Constitution and laws from active violation. The power to legislate over the ten miles square, is strictly confined to its limits, and does not authorize the passage of a law for the sale of lottery tickets in the States.14 When Congress legislate exclusively for Columbia, they are restrained to objects within the District.
1st. We very readily admit, that the act establishing the seat of government, and the act appointing commissioners to superintend the public buildings, are laws of universal obligation. Wheat. The Board of Aldermen, immediately after they shall have assembled in consequence of the first election, shall divide themselves by lot into two classes; the seats of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of one year, and the seats of the second class shall be vacated at the expiration of two years, so that one half may be chosen every year.