Editing Howell E. Jackson (section)

==Circuit judge==
[[File:Howell E. Jackson Cigar Advertisement.jpg|thumb|alt=A cigar advertisement with the words "Smoke the Judge Howell E. Jackson Cigar" showing a picture of Judge Jackson, seated |A cigar advertisement, c. 1892, portraying Jackson, then a circuit judge.]]
The 1886 death of Tennessee federal judge [[John Baxter (judge)|John Baxter]] created a vacancy for President Cleveland to fill on the [[United States circuit court|circuit court]] for the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|Sixth Circuit]].<ref name=":10">{{Cite journal|last=Hardaway|first=Roger D.|date=1976|title=Howell Edmunds Jackson: Tennessee Legislator and Jurist|url=https://search.register.shelby.tn.us/wths/|journal=[[West Tennessee Historical Society|West Tennessee Historical Society Papers]]|volume=30|pages=104–119|via=Shelby County Register of Deeds}}</ref>{{Rp|106}} Cleveland asked his friend Jackson, who was still serving in the Senate, to recommend potential replacements, but the President ignored his advice and instead offered the seat to him.<ref name=":1" />{{Rp|240–241}} The senator attempted to decline, but Cleveland's insistence eventually led him to agree to be nominated.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|341}} The Senate unanimously confirmed Jackson.<ref name=":8" />{{Rp|318}} During his seven-year tenure, he heard a variety of cases, a number of which pertained to [[patent]] issues.<ref name=":1" />{{Rp|242}} In 1889, Jackson urged his friend Harrison – who by then had become president – to appoint his judicial colleague [[Henry Billings Brown]] to the Supreme Court; although Harrison declined to appoint Brown that year, he elevated him to fill a subsequent vacancy the next year.<ref name=":1" />{{Rp|242}} Jackson's most noteworthy opinion on the circuit court was ''In re Greene'' (1892), the first case in which a federal court applied the [[Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890|Sherman Antitrust Act]].<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal|last=Hudspeth|first=Harvey Gresham|date=2002|title=The Rise and Fall of the ''Greene'' Doctrine: The Sherman Act, Howell Jackson, and the Interpretation of "Interstate Commerce", 1890–1941|url=https://ebhsoc.org/journal/index.php/ebhs/article/view/104|journal=[[Essays in Economic & Business History]]|volume=20|issue=1|pages=97–112|via=The Economic & Business History Society|access-date=May 4, 2021|archive-date=June 3, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210603230858/https://ebhsoc.org/journal/index.php/ebhs/article/view/104|url-status=live}}</ref>{{Rp|98}} The ruling in ''Greene'' rejected a Sherman Act indictment against whiskey producers on the basis that the defendants were not preventing other firms from entering the whiskey market.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Meese|first=Alan J.|date=1999|title=Liberty and Antitrust in the Formative Era|url=https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1647&context=facpubs|journal=[[Boston University Law Review]]|volume=79|issue=1|pages=1–92|via=William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository|access-date=May 4, 2021|archive-date=June 2, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210602214320/https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1647&context=facpubs|url-status=live}}</ref>{{Rp|37–38}} Jackson's narrow interpretation of the Act set the stage for later consequential antitrust cases, including ''[[United States v. E. C. Knight Co.]]'' (1895), and it continued to influence [[interstate commerce]] law for half a century.<ref name=":9" />{{Rp|104, 107–108}}

In other cases, Jackson took a broader view of constitutional provisions.<ref name=":10" />{{Rp|108}} His 1893 ruling in ''United States v. Patrick'' interpreted the [[Civil Rights Act of 1870]] expansively.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|343–344}} The defendants in ''Patrick'', who were residents of Tennessee, had been charged with killing several federal officers while they were searching for an illegal [[still]].<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|343}} A lower federal court threw out the indictments, holding the officers were not exercising any legally protected civil right while they were carrying out their duties.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|343}} Jackson rejected these arguments.<ref name=":10" />{{Rp|108}} In his view, federal officers have a constitutionally protected right "of accepting the public employment, and engaging in the administration of its functions".<ref name=":10" />{{Rp|108}} On that basis, Jackson concluded the prosecution under the Civil Rights Act could go forward since the officers' civil rights had been violated.<ref name=":10" />{{Rp|108}} Some Southerners denounced the ruling, objecting that it expanded the scope of an already loathed law.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|344}} Jackson's decision also showed that his stances were sufficiently moderate to coalesce with the Republican agenda.<ref name=":3" />{{Rp|213}}