Nationalistic Fervor Supreme Court
The Marshal Court Decisions
Marbury Vs. Madison: Facts
 William Marbury sues Secretary of State James Madison
for refusing to certify his appointment to the federal
bench
 Marbury asks for writ of mandamus from President to
certify his position
 Marbury is the midnight appointee of Madison, Federalist
Marbury Vs. Madison: Decision
 Marbury should have his position
 Court cannot force Jefferson to write the writs of
mandamus
 Marshall declares this act unconstitutional
Marbury Vs. Madison: Impact
 Judicial Review
 Court has the right to interpret the Constitution
 If an act is unconstitutional the courts can rule against it
 For congressional Acts
 Supreme court has more power
 Made the Supreme Court an equal branch
McCulloch Vs. Maryland: Facts
 After the First Bank of the United States failed in 1811 due
to lack of congressional support, the Second Bank of the
United States was made in 1814. The Second Bank of the
United States was authorized by Congress to help control
the unregulated issuance of currency by state banks.
 -Many were against this, and Maryland imposed a tax on
all banks not chartered by the legislature.
 -One cashier of a branch of the second bank, James
McCulloch, refused to pay this tax was sued by Maryland.
McCulloch Vs. Maryland: Decision
 The Constitution states that Congress has the power to
“make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into execution the forgoing Powers.” Therefore, the
creation of a Bank was not unconstitutional
 Unanimously, everyone voted for McCulloch and against
Maryland. The Court stated that the Congress has the
power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland couldn’t
tax instruments of the national government employed in the
execution of constitutional powers.
 The reason why states shouldn’t be allowed to tax the bank
is because if they could tax the bank, then they would be
able to tax other agencies of the federal government. (The
mail, mint, federal courts, etc.)
McCulloch Vs. Maryland: Impact
 The federal government ended up having the power
to do what is necessary and proper, which included the
grant of authority to establish a national bank, under the
Constitution.
 State action may not impede valid constitutional
exercises of power by the Federal Government. This is
based on the theory of “ the power to tax is the power to
destroy.”
Fletcher Vs. Peck: Facts
 In 1795, the Georgia state legislature passed a land
grant awarding territory to four companies. The
following year, however, the legislature voided the law
and declared all rights and claims under it to be
invalid. In 1800, John Peck acquired land that was part
of the original legislative grant. He then sold the land
to Robert Fletcher three years later, claiming that past
sales of the land had been legitimate. Fletcher argued
that since the original sale of the land had been
declared invalid, Peck had no legal right to sell the
land and thus committed a breach of contract.
Fletcher Vs. Peck: Decision
 In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that since
the estate had been legally "passed into the hands
of a purchaser for a valuable consideration," the
Georgia legislature could not take away the land or
invalidate the contract. Noting that the Constitution
did not permit bills of attainder or ex post facto laws,
the Court held that laws annulling contracts or
grants made by previous legislative acts were
constitutionally impermissible.
 Decision: 5 votes for Peck, 0 vote(s) against
Fletcher Vs. Peck: Impact
 The “Fletcher VS. Peck” Case was one of the first
cases in which the Supreme Court ruled a state law
unconstitutional, the decision also helped create a
growing precedent for the sanctity of legal
contracts, and hinted that Native Americans did
not hold title to their own lands.
Dartmouth College vs. Woodward:
Facts
 In 1816, the New Hampshire legislature wanted to
change Dartmouth College (a privately funded
institution) into a public university, placing the ability
to appoint trustees in the hands of the governor. The
old trustees filed suit against William H. Woodward,
who sided with the new appointees in hope to
regain authority.
Dartmouth College vs. Woodward:
Decision
 On February 2, 1819, the decision, ruled in favor of the
College and invalidated the act of the New Hampshire
legislature. It allowed Dartmouth to exist as a private
institution and take back its buildings, seal, and charter.
The majority opinion was, predictably, written by Marshall.
Chief Justice Marshall's opinion emphasized that the term
"contract" referred to transactions involving individual
property rights, not to "the political relations between the
government and its citizens." Dartmouth was not a
popular decision at the time, and a public outcry
ensued.
Dartmouth College vs. Woodward:
Impact
 Protected the sanctity of contracts against interference by
the states
 Popular opinion influenced some state courts and
legislatures to declare that state governments had an
absolute right to amend or repeal a corporate charter.
 Today opinion on Dartmouth remains mixed; for some it is
viewed positively as one of the most important Supreme
Court rulings, strengthening the Contract Clause and limiting
the power of the States to interfere with private charters,
including those of commercial enterprises; for others, it is
viewed as a problematic extension of individual contract
rights to artificial corporate entities.
Cohens vs. Virginia: Facts
• A $100 fine under Virginia state law for selling tickets in Virginia
for a national lottery authorized by Congress in the District of
Columbia defied congressional authority.
• State authorities also declared themselves the final arbiters of
disputes between the states and national government
• Petitioner: Cohens
• Respondent: Virginia
• State vs. Citizen,
• State vs. National government
Cohens vs. Virginia: Decision
• Decided by: Marshall Court
• Cohens brothers lost
• However, it was confirmed that the Supreme Court had
jurisdiction to review state criminal proceedings
• After establishing the Court's jurisdiction, Marshall declared the
lottery ordinance a local matter and concluded that the
Virginia court was correct to fine the Cohens brothers for
violating Virginia law.
Cohens vs. Virginia: Impact
 The Supreme Court reaffirmed its right to review all
state court judgments in cases arising under the
federal Constitution or a law of the United States.
Gibbons Vs. Ogden: Facts

Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton were exclusively granted New York State’s rights of steam boat
navigation on New York state waters. Ogden was assigned the right to navigate the waters between
New York City and certain ports in New Jersey by Livingston

Ogden brought this lawsuit seeking an injunction in order to restrain Gibbons from operating steam ships
on the waters of New York in violation of his exclusive privilege. Gibbons, who appealed against Ogden’s
injunction, asserted that his steamships were licensed under the Act of Congress entitled “An act for
enrolling and licensing ships and vessels to be employed in the coasting trade and fisheries, and for
regulating the same”. He believed that the Act of Congress replace the “exclusive privilege” granted by
New York State

The debate involved the meaning of Article I, Section 8 – the Commerce Clause

Commerce  Should the word commerce be taken literally such as boxes and barrels, or broadly,
which would include all forms of business relations for the purpose of trade? Was carrying passengers
a form of commerce?

The Chancellor affirmed the injunction, holding that the New York law that provided these people with
the exclusive right of steamboat operation was not offensive to the Constitution and the laws of the
United States, which meant he affirmed that the grants were valid – Gibbons appealed to a higher court

For Gibbons: The Court was urged to take a broad view of the word “commerce”, which would subject
passengers on interstate transports as well as other tangible items of commerce to federal regulation.
The Commerce Clause gives the Federal Government exclusive control over interstate commerce.

For Ogden: The Court was urged to take a narrow view of the word “commerce.” He was granted
exclusive state’s right and anyone who wanted to operate steamboats in New York harbor would have
to pay him for the right. The state’s effort did not interfere with the National Government’s effort to
regulate commerce, and commerce was empowered by the Federal and State governments.
Gibbons Vs. Ogden: Decision
 Chief Justice Marshall delivered the
opinion of an unanimous (6-0) Court
that sided with Gibbons argument. The
Court described commerce as –
“Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but
it is something more: it is intercourse. It
describes the commercial intercourse
between nations, and parts of nations,
in all its branches, and is regulated by
prescribing rules for carrying on that
intercourse.”
 The decision that sided with Gibbons
called his federal license a legitimate
exercise of the regulation of
commerce, under Article I, Section 8 of
the Constitution, which means that the
New York State law creating a
commercial monopoly was void. The
Court declared that Gibbons must be
allowed to operate within New York
State waters.
Gibbons Vs. Ogden: Impact
 The impact of this case was to open up
the field for a wide range of steamship
travel and commerce in the United States
 The Court ruling of this case
acknowledged and realized the
importance of steamship traffic to U.S.
interstate commerce
 After the decision of siding with Gibbons
was made, any state that attempts to
regulate steamship activity between
states (such as Gibbons’ ships, which
sailed between New York and New
Jersey) was a breach of the Constitution
 State-licensed monopolies on island
waterways ended and business
competition was encouraged as a result
of this decision. Chief Justice Roger B.
Taney went one step further and
eliminated State-licensed monopolies
across the board in 1837 (in Charles River
Bridge v. Warren Bridge).