Chief Justice John Marshall:
Landmark Supreme Court Cases
Review to 1877
Agenda
 Bell Ringer
 EOC Review Booklet
 Supreme Court Cases
 Class discussion on the cases
Bell Ringer
Which guarantees freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of
religion to individuals in the United States?
A. The Treaty of Paris of 1783
B. The Articles of Confederation
C. The 1st Amendment to the Constitution
D. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution
Which statement describes a limitation on government action established by the
Bill of Rights?
A. Congress controls interstate commerce
B. The president shares control over foreign policy with Congress
C. The Supreme Court can declare acts of Congress unconstitutional
D. Government officials cannot enter a home without the owner’s permission or a valid
search warrant
EOC Study Guide
 You will read through each court case & create a Supreme
Court Case foldable. This foldable must be turned in at the end
of class so we can create our EOC Review Books for the May
EOC.
 Each section will include the following








Name of the case and date
Reason for the case
Constitutional Issue being reviewed
Who was involved
Courts decision
The impact of the decision
Summary of Chief Justice John Marshall’s quote
Write the question about the case and your answer
Quick Review:
 What is
illustrated in this
cartoon?
 What is message
does this
cartoon convey?
 How does this
cartoon relate to
Marbury v.
Madison?
How does the Artist identify the
people in the cartoon?
What is taking place in the cartoon?
Which court case is represented in
this cartoon ?
Why?
What political issue can this relate to
in todays society
What is illustrated in the
cartoon?
Which court case does it
refer too?
What message is the artist
trying to convey ?
What special interest group
would support this cartoon
Marbury v. Madison 1803

Midnight appointments by John Adams (Federalist)

One of these was William Marbury as justice of the peace for the D.C.

Adams signed appointments but Secretary of State John Marshall did not deliver them in time.

Thomas Jefferson said the appointments were void

Marbury took the case to the Supreme Court hoping that the court would require
Jefferson’s administration to deliver the appointment papers.

Judiciary Act of 1789 allowed the Supreme Court to order an action to be performed

Decision: Judiciary Act (passed by Congress) is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court
cannot issue the writs of mandamus needed to make Jefferson deliver the papers.

Writs of Mandamus - A writ of mandamus or mandamus (which means "we command"
in Latin), or sometimes mandate, is the name of one of the prerogative writs in the
common law, and is "issued by a superior court to compel a lower court or a government
officer to perform
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is. Those who apply the
rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and
interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other,
the courts must decide on the operation of each."
— Chief Justice John Marshall
Marbury v. Madison 1803

Constitutional Issue

Article 3 says the Supreme Court is the head of the judicial system.

Chief Justice John Marshall said the Supreme Court should have the power of judicial review

Judicial review – Supreme Court as final judge of constitutionality of actions of the executive
and legislative branches

Judicial review: This case established the Supreme Court's power of judicial review—the
authority to review laws passed by Congress and declare them unconstitutional. William
Marbury had sued Secretary of State James Madison to force delivery of a judicial
commission. Had he won, the incoming administration of Thomas Jefferson might have
ignored the order. Chief Justice John Marshall's brilliant idea was to agree that Marbury
should have gotten his commission under the law, but that the law itself was unconstitutional.
Marshall thus strengthened the young Court rather than weakening it. Later cases further
established the Court's authority to rule on constitutional issues.
Question: the United States is one of the few countries in which the highest court of the land has the power to declare
a law unconstitutional. Do you believe that such a power is of benefit to a country? Explain your answer.
McCulloch v. Maryland 1819
 Second Bank chartered by Congress in 1816
 West and South disliked Bank
 Some states prevented the Bank from operating, some taxed the
Bank
 George McCulloch a Bank cashier issued bank notes without
paying the Maryland tax
 Maryland courts ruled against McCulloch; he appealed
 Decision: “necessary and proper” clause in the Constitution
allows Congress to create a bank. States cannot tax the
federal govt.
McCulloch v. Maryland 1819
 ". . . Although, among the enumerated powers of
government, we do not find the word "bank" or
"incorporation," we find the great powers to lay and
collect taxes; to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to
declare and conduct a war; and to raise and support
armies and navies . . . But it may with great reason be
contended, that a government, entrusted with such
ample powers . . . must also be entrusted with ample
means for their execution. The power being given, it is
the interest of the nation to facilitate its execution. . . . "
— Chief Justice John Marshall
McCulloch v. Maryland 1819
 Constitutional Issues:
 Powers of Congress
 Relationship between federal and state authorities
 Implied powers granting the federal government more power


Foundation for the New Deal in the 1930s and the welfare state of the
1960s
The decision written by Chief Justice John Marshall in McCulloch v.
Maryland remains one of the U.S. Supreme Court's most important decisions.
By establishing the doctrine of implied powers and the principle of broad
constitutional construction, this decision did much to eliminate the need for
many amendments that have been introduced in an attempt to expand
congressional powers. At the same time, by recognizing the broad reach of
congressional powers, the decision has enhanced the importance of such explicit
restraints on such powers as those found in the Bill of Rights (1791) and
elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution
Question: What is the objective of the “necessary and proper” clause?
Gibbons v. Ogden 1824
 1798 NY Legislature gave Robert Fulton a monopoly for
steamboat navigation in NY
 Partner gave Ogden license to run a ferry service between NY
and NJ
 Competitor Thomas Gibbons received a license from the federal
government to run a ferry between NY and NJ
 Ogden got the NY state court to forbid Gibbon’s boats in NY
 Gibbons appealed to the Supreme Court
 Decision: Gibbons won because the federal government has
the right to regulate interstate commerce including navigation
Gibbons v. Ogden 1824
”. . . Few things were better known, than the immediate
causes which led to the adoption of the present constitution
. . . that the prevailing motive was to regulate commerce; to
rescue it from the embarrassing and destructive
consequences, resulting from the legislation of so many
different States, and to place it under the protection of a
uniform law.”
— Chief Justice John Marshall
Gibbons v. Ogden 1824

Constitutional Issues

Constitution did not clarify interstate commerce (Article 1 Section 8)

Congress has the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the
several States”

Is navigation a part of commerce?

How much can Congress regulate commerce?

Can states also regulate interstate commerce?
One of the most important powers that the Constitution granted to Congress in Article I, Section 8
was the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and
with the Indian Tribes." The absence of such a congressional power had led to considerable
inconvenience during the Articles of Confederation, and states had often treated one another as foreign
nations. Of all the cases that have interpreted the scope of congressional power under the commerce
clause, none has been more important than Gibbons v. Ogden. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court
invalidated a state monopoly and reaffirmed Congress' power to oversee commerce between states.
Question: In what way is Marshall’s ruling in the Gibbons case consistent with his other
decisions? Do you agree with Marshall’s ruling? Explain why.