Marshall Court Cases

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.

Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia State of Georgia passed a law that would have abolished the tribal legislature and courts Cherokee Nation considered themselves a foreign nation so they took their case directly to the Supreme Court Marshall Court refused to hear the case Thought the tribe was NOT a foreign nation

Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia: Outcome Tribe had special status within the nation, a trust relationship, therefore the federal government protects tribal welfare.

Johnson vs. McIntosh - 1823 Who has jurisdiction over Indian tribes? Tribe sold land to white settlers Later, the tribe signed a treaty with the U.S. government ceding land to the feds, including some parcels already sold U.S. Government then granted homestead rights on land already claimed

Johnson vs. McIntosh 1823 - Decision Tribes have a basic right to their tribal lands that proceeds all American law and only the Federal government has the power to take or buy land from the tribes, not individual citizens

Worcester vs. Georgia - 1832 Most important of the tribal decisions Georgia said any United States citizen entering Cherokee territory had to have permission from the governor Two missionaries sued Tribes were sovereign entities with authority

Worcester vs. Georgia - Decision Only the federal government had ultimate authority over the tribes

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).