THE MARSHALL COURT
JOHN MARSHALL
Revolutionary War/Washington’s aide—Adams’ Secretary of State/Adams’ appointee—
Federalist Chief Justice Supreme Court (1801-1835)—dominated Court/opinion
writing—master of debate and reasoning—used “reductio ad absurdum”—often changed
Republican judges to “nationalists”—common man appearance—no legalese (or legal
training)—dissenting opinion once in 1006 decisions. (The one was Ogden v. Saunders,
1827. The court's decision, authored by Justice Bushrod Washington, found that the
Obligation of Contracts Clause of the constitution prevented states from passing only
laws affecting contracts already signed; laws that affected future contracts were construed
to become part of the contracts themselves.)
MARSHALL’S POLITICAL TEMPERAMENT
Loose interpretation/implied powers/judicial review/enforcement of “national
supremacy clause” (Article VI)
MARSHALL’S MOTIVES
Promote nationalism in spite of:








Revolution of 1800/decline of Federalists
rise of Jeffersonian democracy/Virginia dynasty/secular democracy
strengthen the federal government at the expense of state legislatures
strengthen the Court at the expense of Congress/ presidency
advance the interests of the propertied/commercial class:
protect free enterprise from state control
protect the sanctity of contracts
promote industrialization and economic growth
MARSHALL’S MAJOR DECISIONS
MARBURY v. MADISON (1803)
Issue:
One of Adams’ midnight judges (Marbury) sued for a writ of mandamus
(Judiciary Act 1789) forcing Madison (Jefferson’s Secretary of State) to
deliver his federal judicial appointment
Ruling:
Jefferson should have ordered Madison to deliver the appointment. Also writ of mandamus is unconstitutional, thus, no appointment for Marbury.
Result:
Court decides constitutionality/Marbury loses appointment/Jefferson
reprimanded for not fulfilling his duty.
Precedent:
Judicial review/Court power to review the acts of Congress and the
President for constitutionality established the respectability/power of the
Supreme Court.
Court Power:
Co-equal with the other two branches/judicial review.
MARSHALL’S MAJOR DECISIONS
FLETCHER v. PECK (1810)
Issue:
Yazoo Land Co./Georgia repeals land grant of previous (corrupt)
legislature.
Ruling:
Land grants are contracts - states may not impair the obligations of a
contract.
Result:
Georgia may not repeal Yazoo land grant - Court seen as supporting corrupt
money interests.
Precedent:
Sanctity of contracts protected - power of the court to overrule decisions of
a state legislature when in conflict with the Constitution or federal
laws/treaties.
Court Power:
Judicial review of state laws—enforcement of “national supremacy clause.”
MARSHALL’S MAJOR DECISIONS
MARTIN v. HUNTER’S LESSEE (1816)
Issue:
Did the Supreme Court (as provided for in Judiciary Act of 1789) have the
right to review decisions of state supreme courts where federal statutes or
treaties were involved or when state laws had been upheld under the federal
Constitution?
Decision:
Supreme Court rejected the “compact theory” and state claims that they were
equally sovereign with the federal government.
Significance:
It upheld the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and federal judicial
supremacy over the states.
MARSHALL’S MAJOR DECISIONS
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE v. WOODWARD (1819)
Issue:
State legislature attempts to create a public college out of a private college
established under a royal charter from George III (1769)—Webster argues
case for Dartmouth
Ruling:
Charters are legal contracts, therefore inviolable
Result:
Dartmouth remains a private institution/Court seen as protecting the
interests of elites
Precedent:
Loose interpretation of “contract”/power of the Court to override a state
court decision
Court Power:
Judicial review of state court decisions/protection of private charters by
federal government (reaffirmed in COHENS v. VIRGINIA, 1821)/Marshall
argues that states are no longer sovereign having given up certain
powers/rights when ratifying Constitution
MARSHALL’S MAJOR DECISIONS
MCCULLOCH v. MARYLAND (1819)
Issue:
Southern/Western states seek to destroy/limit the power of National Bank—
Maryland seeks to tax bank business/destroy bank
Ruling:
Bank constitutional/necessary and proper clause/”power to tax is the power
to destroy”
Result:
Constitutionality of Bank upheld/state tax of federal agency
unconstitutional/Court very unpopular in South/West (Panic of 1819)
Precedent:
Loose interpretation of necessary and proper clause upheld/state cannot tax
a federal institution
Court Power:
Judicial review of state power to tax
MARSHALL’S MAJOR DECISIONS
COHENS v. VIRGINIA (1821)
Issue:
Virginia courts convicted Cohens for selling lottery tickets illegally. The state
supreme court upheld the decision.
Decision:
Marshall and the court overturned it.
Significance:
Marshall asserted the right of the Supreme Court to review decisions of the
state supreme courts in all questions involving the powers of the federal
government. It was a significant blow to states rights and similar to Martin v.
Hunter’s Lessee.
MARSHALL’S MAJOR DECISIONS
GIBBONS v. OGDEN (1824)
Issue:
New York gives Ogden a monopoly over Hudson River ferrying/federal
Congress gives Gibbons license to ferry same/N. Y. Court rules Gibbons in
violation of state law.
Ruling:
“Navigation” is interstate commerce/state monopolies over interstate
commerce null and void.
Result:
Free enterprise promoted/state power to grant monopolies limited/popular
Court decision makes Republican attacks against Court cease.
Precedent:
Federal supremacy over interstate commerce enforced/loose interpretation
of “commerce” established (transportation is commerce.)
Court Power:
Federal government will regulate interstate commerce.