SUPREME COURT
OBJECTIVE
Gibbons v. Ogden
Students will discuss the meaning of commerce
and determine how the Gibbons v. Ogden ruling
established the superiority of federal law over
state law regarding interstate commerce.
(1824)
THE ISSUE Federal power to regulate interstate commerce
FOCUS & MOTIVATE
ORIGINS OF THE CASE Aaron Ogden ran steamboats between New York
City and New Jersey. The New York state legislature granted him a monopoly—the right to operate this service without any competition. However,
Thomas Gibbons ran a competing service. He had a license to sail under the
federal Coasting License Act of 1793. Ogden sued Gibbons for violating his
monopoly. When the New York state courts found in Ogden’s favor,
Gibbons appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Have students read the legal sources listed on
this page. Point out where Article II, Section 8,
uses the term commerce, and ask the students
to define the term. The Coastal Licensing Act,
enacted by Congress, refers to ships, vessels,
coasting trade, and fisheries. Ask students
what these things have to do with commerce.
THE RULING In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that when state and
federal laws on interstate commerce conflict, federal laws are superior.
The Legal Arguments
MORE ABOUT . . .
U.S. CONSTITUTION/LEGISLATION
A Partnership Gone Sour
Gibbons and Ogden were originally partners in a
steamboat company. This was a profitable venture, owing to the lack of bridges over the Hudson
and the fact that Ogden held the sole New York
rights to operate steamboat ferries between New
York and New Jersey.
Gibbons and Ogden, however, had a falling out
and fought for control of the company. Armed
with a federal permit under the Coastal Licensing
Act of 1793, Gibbons split from Ogden and joined
forces with capitalist Cornelius Vanderbilt to challenge Ogden’s monopoly. After losing their case in
the New York state courts, Vanderbilt hired Daniel
Webster to argue his appeal in the Supreme Court.
Webster was so impressive that Chief Justice
Marshall freely borrowed from Webster’s argument when writing the opinion of the Court.
Article 1, Section 8 (1789)
“The Congress shall have power
to . . . regulate commerce with
foreign nations, and among the
several states, and with the
Indian tribes.”
Coasting License Act (1793)
All ships licensed under this act,
“and no others, shall be deemed
ships or vessels of the United
States, entitled to the privileges
of ships or vessels employed in
the coasting trade or fisheries.”
RELATED CASES
Fletcher v. Peck (1810)
Citing the Supremacy Clause,
the Court ruled that a state law
was unconstitutional.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
The Court established that
states had no authority to tax
federal agencies.
Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the Court’s unanimous opinion,
which found for Gibbons. Since the Constitution gave Congress the
power to regulate commerce among the states, Marshall began, it
would be useful to decide what the word commerce meant. In arguments before the Court, Ogden’s lawyers had said that it simply
referred to the buying and selling of goods. Marshall disagreed, suggesting that it also included the navigation necessary to move goods
from one place to another. He wrote:
The word used in the constitution comprehends . . . navigation within its
meaning; and a power to regulate navigation is as expressly granted as if
that term had been added to the word “commerce.”
Marshall then pointed to the Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution. This is Article 6, Section 2, which states, “This
Constitution, and the laws of the United States . . . shall
be the supreme law of the land.”
The New York monopoly law denied Gibbons the
right to sail in New York waters. The federal
Coasting License Act, however, gave him the right
to sail all U.S. waters. According to the Supremacy
Clause, the Constitution and federal laws were
the supreme law of the land. So, Marshall concluded, the Coasting License Act was “the
supreme law of the land,” and the New York
monopoly was void.
Aaron Ogden obtained a monopoly on
steamship operation between New York
and New Jersey in 1815.
904
ACTIVITY OPTIONS
INTERDISCIPLINARY LINK: ECONOMICS
MONOPOLIES
Class Time 30 minutes
Supplies Needed
Task Playing an uncompetitive card
game
• Deck of cards
• Paper to keep score
Purpose To explain the idea of
monopoly and how it relates to the
case of Gibbons v. Ogden.
904 SUPREME COURT
Activity Divide the class into groups of five and have each group play a
simple card game, such as poker. At the start of each hand, give one player
the red aces. This player will have a monopoly on the red aces. Then deal
the cards and play the rest of the hand. Have the students record who won
each hand. After five hands have been played, add up how many hands
each player won and discuss which player benefited from the monopoly.
Then give a second player a monopoly on black aces. Play five more hands,
recording the winners. Then discuss with students how the new situation
affected the competition. Ask them to consider how these card games
relate to the situation of Ogden and Gibbons.
Why Does It Matter Now?
At the time of the Gibbons case, navigation of the
waters around New York was difficult. To encourage companies to provide water transportation,
New York granted monopolies to the companies.
Some states set up their own. Other states passed
laws preventing New York steamboats from entering their waters. Obviously, such a situation was
not good for trade among the states. By making it
clear that the federal government regulated commerce among the states, the Gibbons decision
brought order to interstate commerce. And this
helped the national economy to grow.
Unlike other decisions of the Marshall Court
that strengthened the federal government,
Gibbons proved popular. Most Americans—even
New Yorkers—were opposed to the New York
steamboat monopoly. They saw any kind of
monopoly as a limit to economic competition. As
a result, the Gibbons decision was well received
throughout the country. One newspaper reported
the following incident:
Marshall defined “commerce” very broadly in the
Gibbons decision. Over the years, Congress has used
Marshall’s definition to expand its authority over
interstate commerce. Today, Congress regulates
practically every activity that affects or is connected
to commerce.
In 1964, for example, Congress used the
Commerce Clause to justify the passage of the
Civil Rights Act. This law banned racial discrimination in hotels, restaurants, theaters, and other
public places.
The Supreme Court rejected two challenges to
the Civil Rights Act—in Heart of Atlanta Motel,
Inc. v. United States (1964) and Katzenbach v.
McClung (1964). In both cases, the Court noted
that racial discrimination could harm interstate
commerce.
H ISTORIC D ECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT
Why Did It Matter Then?
GIBBONS V. OGDEN
INSTRUCT
• Why was the definition of the term commerce
important to this case?
• How did the Marshall Court determine that
the federal government should regulate
interstate commerce?
• Why did most Americans applaud the ruling
in this case?
• How did Congress later associate commerce
with the Civil Rights Act?
MAKING PERSONAL CONNECTIONS
Ask students how they buy things. Can they buy
things that are made in a different state? What
would happen if their ability to buy out-of-state
items were restricted because of a shipping
monopoly? Do they think that would be fair?
Yesterday the Steamboat United States, [commanded by] Capt. Bunker, from New Haven, entered New
York in triumph, with streamers flying and a large
company of passengers [celebrating] the decision
of the United States Supreme Court against the
New York monopoly. She fired a salute which was
loudly returned by [cheers] from the wharves.
After the first voyage of Robert
Fulton’s Clermont in 1807, it soon
became clear that operating
steamships could be a profitable
business.
CONNECT TO HISTORY
1. Drawing Conclusions Many of Chief Justice John
Marshall’s opinions contributed to the growth of the
nationalist spirit in the early 1800s. How do you
think the Gibbons v. Ogden decision might have
helped to build national unity?
See Skillbuilder Handbook, page R13.
CONNECT TO TODAY
2. Researching Use library resources and the Internet
to find recent Supreme Court cases that involved
interstate commerce. Write a brief summary of one
of these cases, noting whether it expanded or
contracted Congress’s power to regulate commerce.
For more information on interstate commerce . . .
RESEARCH LINKS
CL ASSZONE .COM
905
CONNECT TO HISTORY
CONNECT TO TODAY
1. Drawing Conclusions Possible Response Orderly
interstate commerce would increase the economic
links between people of different regions. They
could buy and use similar goods. They could also sell
their own products throughout the nation, leading
to the development of a national economy.
2. Researching Students might use library sources or
the Internet to find recent cases where the Supreme
Court addressed interstate commerce. Their
summaries should use standard grammar, spelling,
sentence structure, and punctuation.
Teacher’s Edition 905