...sue in the Federal courts in cases "between citizens of different States" it was held in 1805 that the District of Columbia is not a State within the meaning of section 2 of article III of the Constitution (Hepburn and Dundas v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch 443). Public Act...

...Chief of these are: Hepburn v. Ellzcu, 2 Crunch 443 (1804), in which Chief Justice Marshall held that the District of Columbia is not a State within the meaning of the constitutional clause opening Federal courts to controversies "between citizens of different States."...

...Chief of these are : Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch 443 (1804), in which Chief Justice Marshall held that the District of Columbia is not a State within the meaning of the constitutional clause opening Federal courts to controversies "between citizens of different States."...

...in this respect between the citizens of the District and those of the States, the fact remains that the District of Columbia is not a State within the meaning of the constitutional provision authorizing citizens of one State to sue and be sued by citizens of another...

...in this respect between the citizens of the District and those of the States, the fact remains that the District of Columbia is not a State within the meaning of the constitutional provision authorizing citizens of one State to sue and be sued by citizens of another...

...legalities of it, because Chief Justice Marshall in 1805 did in a Supreme Court decision clearlv state that the District of Columbia is not a State within the meaning of that term in the Federal Constitution. That has been repeated in other Supreme Court decisions and...

...actions of the Federal Government and its offices are beyond "the purview of the Amendment. And since the District of Columbia is not a "State within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Boiling v. Sharpe, 347 US 497, 499 (1954) ; Shelley v. Kraemer, supra, at...

...S5171 (daily ed. April 27, 1990). 90See, eg. District of Columbia v. Carter, 409 US 418, 424 (1973) ("The District of Columbia is not a 'State' within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment") (citations omitted) . But see, 48 USCS S 1421b (Law. Co-op. 1981); 48 USCS S...

...power of Congress to " regulate " commerce is confined to commerce "among the several States," and the District of Columbia is not a State within the meaning of that phrase. If such a proposition is correct as to commerce between the District of Columbia and an...

...District of Columbia, Section 1983 did not apply to District residents. "[T]he commands of the 14* Amendment are addressed only to the State or to those...Columbia is not a 'State' within the meaning of the 90 F. Supp. 2d 35, 37. Id., at 40 (emphasis supplied). 409 US 418 (1973). Id., at 423-24. 7 14* Amendment...