Supreme Court Cases:
The Marshall CourtEstablishing Federal Supremacy
Main Cases
Marbury
v Madison (1803)
McCulloch v Maryland (1819)
Gibbons v Ogden (1824)
Judiciary Act of 1789


1789 law that created
the Judicial Branch of
the federal
government.
Things provided for in
the Act:




the number of
members of the
Supreme Court (6)
the number of lower
district courts (13)
the idea that the
Supreme Court can
settle disputes
between states
the idea that a
decision by the
Supreme Court is final.
Judiciary Act of 1801

Gave the
President the
power to
appoint more
federal judges.
Marbury v Madison (1803)
Historical Context
-In November 1800, Federalist President John Adams lost
his re-election bid to Anti-Federalist Thomas Jefferson.
- Last minute, Adams appointed several Federalist federal
judges who were then approved by the Senate.
-Knowing this, when Jefferson became President, he
ordered Sec. Of State James Madison not to deliver the
commission to William Marbury
-Marbury sued Madison in an attempt to gain his post.
-Marbury asked the Supreme Court to rule on the case
Issue


Whether Marbury deserved the Commission
Whether the Supreme Court could remedy his
problem
Decision
-The Supreme Court and James Marshall found that the Judiciary Act
was unconstitutional because it gave the powers to the SC and the
Constitution does not give Congress the power to do that
-Established the precedent that the SC has the final say on
all laws (Judicial Review)
-Winner: John Marshall-strengthened the power of the SC
Legacy of Marbury Case



Established Judicial Review
More Power to Judicial Branch
Marshall Court: Strengthen the power of the
federal government
McCulloch v Maryland (1819)
Historical Context
-The state of Maryland brought an action against James
McCulloch, a cashier in the Maryland branch of the Bank
of the United States, for not paying a tax the State had
imposed on the US Bank.
Issue:
Whether the state of Maryland had the right to
tax a federal agency which was properly set up
by the US Congress.
Decision:
The Court ruled that the “power to tax is the power
to destroy” and that the federal government’s bank
was immune to state taxation. The Court reasoned
that Congress could set up a bank and
write laws “necessary and proper” according to its
constitutional power to coin and regulate money.
Other Significant Cases of the Marshall Court
Gibbons v Ogden (1824)- SC established
broad interpretation of the federal
government’s authority over interstate
commerce
The Case



Aaron Ogden filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of New
York asking the court to restrain Thomas Gibbons from
operating on these waters. Ogden's lawyer contended that
states often passed laws on issues regarding interstate matters
and that states should have fully concurrent power with
Congress on matters concerning interstate commerce.
Gibbons' lawyer, Daniel Webster, argued that Congress had
exclusive national power over interstate commerce according to
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and that to argue
otherwise would result in confusing and contradictory local
regulatory policies.
The Court of Chancery of New York and the Court of Errors of
New York found in favor of Ogden and issued an injunction to
restrict Gibbons from operating his boats. Gibbons appealed the
case to the Supreme Court, which reversed the decision.
The Decision

The decision called Gibbons's federal license a
legitimate exercise of the regulation of commerce
provided in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
The New York State law creating a commercial
monopoly was therefore void, since it conflicted
with the regulatory power of the Federal
Government in the performance of its constitutional
responsibilities. The Court ruled that Gibbons must
be allowed to operate within the waters of New
York State.
Dred Scott v Sanford
(1757)

Historical Context
• Dredd Scott was a slave who forever changed the
definition of property. He went with his master to
Illinois and Minnesota and claimed that this made him
a free man. The Missouri Supreme Court found
otherwise. Scott, sued his new owner, John Sanford of
New York, for damages, alleging physical abuse. A
federal court ruled that Scott was a citizen. But the
Supreme Court ruled otherwise. Chief Justice Roger
Taney, in an 1857 plurality opinion, said that AfricanAmericans could never become United States citizens
and that the Missouri Compromise was
unconstitutional. Further, the Court said, Congress
could not constitutionally exclude slavery from the
territories.
Issue

Since the Missouri Compromise outlawed slavery in
newly established territories and Scott moved with
his owner to Minnesota, he was then considered a
free man. The SC ruled against Scott stating that
property does not have rights therefore Scott’s
claims of abuse were not valid
Decision

The Supreme Court ruled otherwise. Chief
Justice Roger Taney, in an 1857 said that
African-Americans could never become
United States citizens and that the
Missouri Compromise was
unconstitutional. Further, the Court said,
Congress could not constitutionally
exclude slavery from the territories.
Review Questions
What did Marbury v Madison establish?
 What powers were strengthened by Marshall
Court decisions?
