It appeared that the Court thought the examination of invalids a very extraordinary duty to be imposed on the Judges—and looked on the law which imposed that duty as an unconstitutional one; inasmuch as it directs the Secretary of War to state the mistakes of the Judge to Congress for their revision; they could not, therefore, accede to a regulation tending to render the Judiciary subject to the Legislative and Executive powers, which, from a regard for liberty and the Constitution, ought to be kept carefully distinct, it being a primary principle of the utmost importance that no decision of the Judiciary Department should under any pretext be brought in revision before either the Legislative or Executive Departments of the government, neither of which have, in any instance, a revisionary authority over the judicial proceedings of the Courts of Justice.… This being the first instance in which a Court of Justice had declared a law of Congress to be unconstitutional, the novelty of the case produced a variety of opinions with respect to the measures to be taken on the occasion. At length a Committee of five were appointed to enquire into the facts contained in the Memorial and to report thereon.
A singular suggestion made by one Congressman that a law be passed "to point out some regular mode in which the Judges shall give official notice of their refusal to act under any law of Congress on the ground of unconstitutionality", would seem to have been a complete and early recognition in Congress that the Judges would continue to exercise this power.
The decision evidently caused considerable excitement not only in Congress but in the community; and while, fifteen years later, it was the Anti-Federalists who assailed this form of exercise of judicial power, the curious fact should be noted that, at this time, the Federalists were apparently the opponents and the Anti-Federalists the upholders of the Judiciary. Thus, Freneau's National Gazette, a violent opponent of Federalism, applauded the decision of the Judges
