Dr. Bonham's Case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dr. Bonham's Case is a legal case decided in 1610 by Sir Edward Coke, Chief Justice of England's Court of Common Pleas, in which he arguably asserted the supremacy of the common law in England, under some circumstances.

In the case, the Royal College of Physicians had convicted and imprisoned Thomas Bonham for practicing medicine without a licence. When Bonham challenged his imprisonment, Coke ruled that the Royal College lacked the authority under its charter and a parliamentary statute to imprison for practicing without a licence.^[1] Among other things, Coke ruled that the provision of the charter allowing imprisonment must be read strictly to prevent loss of liberty ("reason requireth that same be taken strictly for the liberty of the Subject"), and Coke also noted that the College cannot be a judge in a case to which it is a party.

Sir Edward Coke

Drawing on prior judicial decisions, Coke then made the following general statement:

And it appears in our books, that in many cases, the common law will control acts of parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void: for when an act of parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it, and adjudge such act to be void; and, therefore, in ... Thomas Tregor's case [Judge] Herle said, some statutes are made against law and right, which those who made them perceiving, would not put them in execution....^[1]

In October of 1616, King James I of England questioned Coke about this aspect of his report in Dr. Bonham’s Case, and Coke replied that “The words of my report do not import any new opinion” but only restated what appeared in former times.^[2] However, according to some scholars, Tregor’s case (relied upon by Coke) “proves nothing”^[3] and did not “bear out Coke’s conclusions,”^[4] and Coke may have been “reading his own particular opinion into the authorities on which he professed to rely.”^[5]

Scholars disagree about whether Coke was claiming power to declare statutes void.^[6] Even if he was claiming such power, he may not have actually attempted to bring that power to bear in this case; as mentioned, Coke said that he was strictly interpreting a statute for the liberty of the subject. Therefore, Coke's apparent claim of power to declare unreasonable statutes void is often considered to be dicta.^[7]

[edit] Impact of Bonham's case on American jurisprudence

The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed Bonham's Case. For example, the Court explained in 1884 that Bonham's Case did not actually make common law supreme over statutory law:

[N]otwithstanding what was attributed to Lord COKE in Bonham's Case, 8 Reporter, 115, 118a, the omnipotence of parliament over the common law was absolute, even against common right and reason. The actual and practical security for English liberty against legislative tyranny was the power of a free public opinion represented by the commons.^[8]

More recently, Justice David Souter wrote as follows in a 1996 case:

The traditional conception of the common law as it developed in England had always been that it was freely alterable by statute. Coke appears to have attempted at one time to establish a paramount common law, see, e.g., Dr. Bonham's Case...but that attempt never took root in England. And although Coke's dictum was to have a somewhat greater influence in America, that influence took the form of providing an early foundation for the idea that courts might invalidate legislation that they found inconsistent with a written constitution. As I demonstrate infra, the idea that legislation may be struck down based on principles of common law or natural justice not located within the constitutional text has been squarely rejected in this country.^[9]

Nevertheless, some scholars have observed that the U.S. Supreme Court has come “full circle to the dictum in Bonham’s Case” by using the Due Process Clause in order to strike down what the Court deems “unreasonable” legislation.^[7]