Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 1994 Revolution and Judicial Review: Chief Justice Holt's Opinion in City of London v. Wood Philip A. Hamburger Columbia Law School,
[email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Philip A. Hamburger, Revolution and Judicial Review: Chief Justice Holt's Opinion in City of London v. Wood, 94 COLUM. L. REV. 2091 (1994). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/95 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact
[email protected]. COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW VOL. 94 NOVEMBER 1994 NO. 7 REVOLUTION AND JUDICIAL REVIEW: CHIEF JUSTICE HOLT'S OPINION IN C/TY OFLONDON V WOOD Philip A. Hamburger* In 1702, in an opinion touching upon parliamentary power, Chief Justice Sir John Holt discussed limitations on government in language that has long seemed more intriguing than clear. Undoubtedly, the Chief Justice was suggesting limitations on government-limitations that subsequently have become quite prominent, particularly in America. Yet even the best report of his opinion concerning these constraints has left historians in some doubt as to just what he was saying and why it was significant.' The case in which ChiefJustice Holt was so obscure about matters of such importance, City of London v. Wood,2 revived the old maxim that a person could not be judge in his own case.