Vinluan Unit 3: The Early Republic
The Marshall Court and Growing Nationalism: A Cheat Sheet
(originally from Tom Sleet, Thomas Jefferson High School)
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”
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: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”
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
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.
Vinluan Unit 3: The Early Republic
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
Questions to consider…
1. What political and economic trends are evident in the rulings of the Marshall Court?
2. What effect do these rulings have on the development and growth of the New
Republic?