While scholars have focused on the importance of the landmark decisions of the United States Supreme Court and its Chief Justice, John Marshall, in the rising influence of the federal justice system in the early Republic, the crucial role of the circuit courts in establishing uniformity of federal law and procedure across the nation has largely been ignored. This thesis seeks to remedy this lack of research on circuit courts by revealing the central role of their presiding Supreme Court justices in the successful development of a national court system drawn up from the ‘inferior’ courts rather than down from the Supreme Court to the lower jurisdictions. This thesis argues that, at a time when the Supreme Court had few cases to consider, all of the nation’s law was formulated by the lower courts; with very few decisions appealed, the circuit court opinions were invariably accepted as final, settling the law for each circuit and for the nation if followed by other justices. Therefore, in the early years, it was the circuit experience and not Supreme Court authority which shaped the course of United States law. This thesis contributes to an understanding of this early justice system because of its focus on and the depth of its research into the work of the circuit courts. Through detailed analysis, it reveals the sources used by the justices to influence the direction of the law and, by its reading of almost 2000 cases tried by four prominent Marshall associate justices, presents insights into momentous issues facing the Union. The thesis examines the generality of the circuit work of each justice but pays particular attention to the different ways in which each contributed to the shaping of United States law. Understanding the importance of the role of the circuit courts leads to a more informed reading of early American legal history.

Thesis advisor: Mark S. Massa, S.J. / Since the publication of Harvard Law School professor Adrian Vermeule’s now-infamous 2020 essay in The Atlantic, “Beyond Originalism,” American legal scholars have developed a renewed interest in natural law jurisprudence’s position in the American legal tradition. Although many of Vermeule’s critics have framed his jurisprudential method as foreign to the American legal tradition, American legal scholars likewise engaged in important debates about natural law jurisprudence nearly a century ago. During this earlier period, scholars debated whether natural law jurisprudence's reliance on deductive reasoning could withstand the inductive and socially scientific methods that became popular at elite American law schools during the 1920s and 1930s. To understand this earlier iteration of debate over natural law jurisprudence, this thesis turns to the life and legacy of William J. Kenealy—a Jesuit priest who served as dean of the Boston College Law School between 1939 and 1956. Although Kenealy has been almost entirely ignored in the historiography, he figured prominently in an attempted revival of natural law jurisprudence that occurred during the early/mid-twentieth century. Terming this movement the “Neo-Scholastic Legal Revival” because of its reliance on Neo-Scholastic understandings of natural law philosophy, this thesis uncovers how Kenealy's religious formation at the turn of the twentieth century, legal training at the Jesuit-run Georgetown University, and wartime leadership at Boston College positioned him well to contribute to the Revival. In doing so, this thesis reveals that leaders in the Revival, including Kenealy, exerted cognizable influence on twentieth-century American legal discourse. Thus, this thesis challenges dominant historical treatments of twentieth-century American legal development that have ignored an attempted revival of natural law jurisprudence that occurred almost a century before Vermeule emerged in the national legal consciousness. / Thesis (MA) — Boston College, 2023. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: History.