The case involved the Judiciary Act of 1801, which created a number of federal judgeships, who were called "midnight judges" since the Act had been passed by the lame-duck members of the Federalist Party during its final days in office. The Act established new circuit court judges to hear intermediate appeals.

As a result, Supreme Court justices would no longer have to "ride circuit," which entailed substantial and often-dangerous travel, to sit with district (trial) court judges to hear appeals throughout the nation. Soon after its passage, the Act was replaced by the Repeal Act of March 8, 1802. In passing the Judiciary Act of 1802, Congress "also postponed the next term of the Supreme Court until 1803," which prevented the Court from ruling on the Act's constitutionality until after going into effect, according to law professor William Nelson. Federalists attacked the Democratic-Republican Party's new legislation by arguing that federal judges were appointed for life and so could not be constitutionally removed by the Repeal Act. The Judiciary Act of 1802 reinstated circuit courts but also resurrected the practice of circuit riding. Many thought the 1802 Act to be unconstitutional. One of them was newly-appointed Chief Justice John Marshall, who argued that justices should not have to preside over circuit courts unless they were commissioned as circuit court judges. He wrote of the other justices, "I am not of opinion that we can under our present appointments hold circuit courts, but I presume a contrary opinion is held by the Court and, if so, I shall conform to it."^{[citation needed]}

Justice Samuel Chase agreed with Marshall, but the other justices disagreed.

With Marshall not participating but very active behind the scenes, Justice William Paterson held for a unanimous Court that Congress had the authority under the Constitution both to establish and to abolish lower federal courts.

Although the Court sustained the Judiciary Act of 1802, the issue of circuit riding was substantially lessened because the Act effectively made circuit riding optional by requiring only one federal judge for a quorum on any circuit court. As a result, Supreme Court justices could rely on district court judges to hear intermediate appeals. That flexibility proved crucial to the demise of circuit riding. By the 1840s, the justices had all but stopped holding circuit courts.

Scholars such as Bruce Ackerman have pointed to the decision as part of the opposition Federalist Court's accommodation of the new political regime.

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 5
• Marbury v. Madison (1803)
• United States courts of appeals
• United States v. More (1805)

• Ackerman, Bruce (2005). The Failure of the Founding Fathers: Jefferson, Marshall, and the Rise of Presidential Democracy. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University. ISBN 978-0-674-01866-2.
• Nelson, William E. (2000). Marbury V. Madison: The Origins and Legacy of Judicial Review. University Press of Kansas. p. 58.
• Pohlman, Harry L. (1995). Constitutional Debate in Action. HarperCollins. p. 21.
• Randolph, Mark Lee (1992). The judicial activism and historical importance of Stuart v. Laird. Charlottesville, VA: M.A.-Thesis. OCLC 26797948.
• Smith, Jean Edward (1996). John Marshall: Definer Of A Nation. New York: Henry Holt & Company. ISBN 978-0-8050-1389-4.
• Ward, Artemus (2003). Deciding to Leave: The Politics of Retirement from the United States Supreme Court. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. ISBN 978-0-7914-5652-1.

• James M. O'Fallon, The Case of Benjamin More: A Lost Episode in the Struggle over Repeal of the 1801 Judiciary Act, 11 Law & Hist. Rev. 43 (1993).

• Text of Stuart v. Laird, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 299 (1803) is available from: Findlaw  Justia  Library of Congress  OpenJurist 
• https://web.archive.org/web/20030505051814/http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/cases/stuart.htm Written by a professor at St. Mary's University School of Law.
• http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a3_1s27.html
• http://www.law.missouri.edu/fisch/stuart.htm