Marshall Supreme Court Cases
http://tlc-patch.tourolaw.edu/patch/CaseSummary.asp
Marbury v. Madison
Date:
Summary of
Events - What is
the legal question?
(In your own
words)








Decision:


Outcome and
Explanation:




March 2, 1801
Feb. 24, 1803
Adams made a series of “midnight appointments” to fill court with Federalists.
TJ took over & instructed Madison to not deliver the appointment.
Marbury sued Madison to get the appointment he felt he deserved - a writ of mandamus,
requiring Madison to deliver the appointment.
The Judiciary Act, passed by Congress in 1789, permitted Court to issue such a writ.
Is Marbury entitled to his appointment? Is his lawsuit the correct way to get it? And, is
the Supreme Court the place for Marbury to get the relief he requests?
The Court decided that Marbury’s request for a writ of mandamus was based on a law
passed by Congress that the Court held to be unconstitutional.
The Court decided unanimously that the federal law contradicted the Constitution, and
since the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, it must reign supreme.
4 votes for Madison, 0 vote(s) against (Justices William Cushing and Alfred Moore did
not participate) - Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789
Yes; yes; and it depends.
The justices held, through Marshall's forceful argument, that on the last issue the
Constitution was "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation" and that "an act of
the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void."
Power of Judicial Review asserted
Supremacy of US Constitution over federal law
Fletcher v. Peck
Date:
Summary of
Events - What is
the legal question?
(In your own
words)







Decision:





Outcome and
Explanation:


1803
1810
In 1795, the Georgia legislature sold thirty-five million acres of Native American land to
four land speculating companies for one-half million dollars.
In 1796, new legislature rescinded the sale of the land because of widespread fraud and
bribery that influenced the original sale of the thirty-five million acres.
John Peck bought land from one of the original land speculating companies & resold the
land to Robert Fletcher.
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.
Can the contract entered into by Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Peck be invalidated by the new
law passed by the Georgia legislature?
5 votes for Peck, 0 vote(s) against - US Const. Art 1, Section 10, Clause 1
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 ex post facto.
Court held that laws annulling contracts or grants made by previous legislative acts
were constitutionally impermissible.
Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, agreed: "Is a clause to be considered as
inhibiting the State from impairing the obligation of contracts between two
individuals, but as excluding from that inhibition contracts made with itself?
The words themselves contain no such distinction. They are general, and are
applicable to contracts of every description."
Extended the Contract Clause to public as well as private contracts, thereby making it
applicable to transactions to which the state itself was a party
The Constitution prohibits states from passing any “law impairing the obligation of
contracts.”
First case in which a state statute was held void under the United States Constitution,
Dartmouth College v. Woodward
Date:
Summary of
Events - What is
the legal question?
(In your own
words)
Decision:
Outcome and
Explanation:



1816
February 2, 1819
Dartmouth College was established in 1769 under a corporate charter from King George
III of England, which was to last “forever.”
 In 1816, the New Hampshire legislature attempted to change Dartmouth College-- a
privately funded institution--into a state university. The legislature changed the school's
corporate charter by transferring the control of trustee appointments to the governor.
 In an attempt to regain authority over the resources of Dartmouth College, the old
trustees filed suit against William H. Woodward (the state-approved secretary of the new
board of trustees), who sided with the new appointees.
 Whether the Dartmouth College’s private corporate charter was constitutionally
protected & Did the New Hampshire legislature unconstitutionally interfere with
Dartmouth College's rights under the Contract Clause?
 6 votes for Dartmouth College, 1 vote(s) against - U.S. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 10 (Powers
Denied the States)
 Court held that the College's corporate charter qualified as a contract between private
parties, with which the legislature could not interfere
 Chief Justice Marshall stated that the College charter was a contract protected by the
Constitution and the state of New Hampshire was bound to respect the original charter.
 Sanctity of contracts - Definition of corporation
 strengthened the Contract Clause and limiting the power of the States to interfere with
private charters, including those of commercial enterprises.
Definition of corporation
“A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in
contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties
which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly or as incidental to its
very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for
which it was created. Among the most important are immortality, and, if the expression
may be allowed, individuality; properties by which a perpetual succession of many
persons are considered as the same, and may act as a single individual. They enable a
corporation to manage its own affairs and to hold property
McCullough v. Maryland
Date:
Summary of
Events - What is
the legal question?
(In your own
words)







Decision:




April 8, 1816 - Congress of the United States act
February 11, 1818, the General Assembly of Maryland passed act
1819
Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States.
Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank. James W. McCulloch, the
cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank, refused to pay the tax.
The state of Maryland brought an action against James William McCulloch, a cashier in
the Maryland branch of the Bank of the United States, for not paying a tax the state had
imposed on the United States Bank.
Did Congress have the authority to establish the bank? Did Maryland had the right to
tax a federal agency which was properly set up by the United States Congress?
7 votes for McCulloch, 0 vote(s) against - US Const. Art 1, Section 8 Clauses 1 and 18
Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland could not tax
instruments of the national government
Marshall - Congress possessed unenumerated powers not explicitly outlined Constitution
The Court reasoned that Congress could set up a United States Bank and write laws
“necessary and proper” to carry out its constitutional power to coin and regulate money.
Outcome and
Explanation:




Had a precedent (1st National bank) allowedCongress to do this
Marshall admitted that the Constitution does not enumerate a power to create a central
Bank but said that this is not dispositive as to Congress's power to establish such an
institution
Marshall supported the Court's opinion textually by invoking the Necessary and Proper
Clause, which permits Congress to seek an objective that is within its enumerated
powers so long as it is rationally related to the objective and not forbidden by the
Constitution
Reaffirmation of supremacy of Constitution & Federal Law - Federal immunity state
taxation
“We admit, as all most admit, that the powers of the government are limited, and
that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the
Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion, with respect to
the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution, which
will en able that body to perform the high duties assigned to it, in the manner
most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope
of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly
adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but
Gibbons v. Ogden
Date:
Summary of
Events - What is
the legal question?
(In your own
words)








Decision:





Outcome and
Explanation:



1808 – Livingston & Fulton granted exclusdive priviledges to NY Sates waters
1815 – Gibbons purchased liscense from Fult & Livingston - into business with Ogden
Argued February 5, 1824 - Decided March 2, 1824
A New York State law gave to individual boats (Robert Livingston & Robert Fulton) to
pay substantial fees for navigation privileges.
Ogden had secured a license for steam navigation from Fulton and Livingston.
Gibbons originally had been partners with Odgen but was now his rival & did business
between New York and New Jersey under a federal coastal license -- challenged the
monopoly license granted by New York to Aaron Ogden. New York courts consistently
upheld the state monopoly.
Ogden petitioned the New York court and obtained an injunction ordering Gibbons to
stop operating his boats in New York waters.
Did the State of New York exercise authority in a realm reserved exclusively to
Congress, namely, the regulation of interstate commerce?
6 votes for Gibbons, 0 vote(s) against - US Const. Art 1, Section 8, Clause 3
The unanimous Court found that New York's licensing requirement for out-of-state
operators was inconsistent with a congressional act regulating the coasting trade. The
New York law was invalid by virtue of the Supremacy Clause.
Marshall's was one of the earliest and most influential opinions concerning this
important clause. He concluded that regulation of navigation by steamboat operators and
others for purposes of conducting interstate commerce was a power reserved to and
exercised by the Congress.
In a concurring opinion, Justice William Johnson argued a much stronger position: that
the national government had exclusive power over interstate commerce, negating state
laws interfering with the exercise of that power.
Marshall's was one of the earliest and most influential opinions concerning this
important clause. He concluded that regulation of navigation by steamboat operators and
others for purposes of conducting interstate commerce was a power reserved to and
exercised by the Congress.
In a concurring opinion, Justice William Johnson argued a much stronger position: that
the national government had exclusive power over interstate commerce, negating state
laws interfering with the exercise of that power.
The Court used this case to put forth the position that Congress can legislate and
regulate all matters of interstate commerce as long as there is some commercial
connection with another state.
While interstate commerce is regulated by Congress, power to regulate “completely
internal” commerce (trade carried on in a state that does not affect other states) is
reserved to the states.
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
Date:
Summary of
Events - What is
the legal question?
(In your own
words)







Decision:

Outcome and
Explanation:




Decided March 18, 1831
The court ruling resulted in the expulsion of the Cherokee nation
In 1791, a federal treaty granted the Cherokee Indians land within the boundaries of
Georgia.
In the 1820s the state began to enforce strict laws which were meant to assert control
over the Indians and their land.
Georgia wanted valuable Cherokee land & in 1828 Georgia passed a law claiming
ownership of the Cherokee territory and annulling all laws and customs
Does the state of Georgia have the authority to regulate the intercourse between citizens
of its state and members of the Cherokee Nation?
The Supreme Court denied the Cherokees request reasoning it had no jurisdiction to
decide such a case. Chief Justice Marshall wrote, “this is not the tribunal that can
redress the past or prevent the future.”
Cherokees a "domestic dependent" nation, cannot sue in federal court
Cherokees a "domestic dependent" nation, cannot sue in federal court.
The Constitution only authorizes the Supreme Court to hear cases from “foreign
nations”, not “Indian nations” which the Cherokees were
The Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokee Nation was a dependent nation within the
US
Jackson refuses to enforce decision. "John Marshall made his decision; now let him
enforce it."