The Marshall Court Mr. Johnson AP US History

Yazoo Land Grants

The Marshall Court Mr. Johnson AP US History

Who Was John Marshall?

Three Branches

Who Interprets the Constitution? John Marshall Judicial review Thomas Jefferson Nullification by states

John Marshall Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 1801-1835 Federalist National supremacy Economic growth Independence and power of judicial branch

“Midnight Judge” William Marbury Marbury v. Madison, 1803 Issue Judicial review Partisan politics Background “Lame duck” Federalist Congressmen passed a new Judiciary Act in early 1801 Adams (F) appointed “midnight judges” but Jefferson (DR) refused to deliver commissions Marbury sued for his job Outcome S.C. established its power of judicial review over president and Congress Marbury didn’t get the job This case was the most important precedent (stare decisis = let the decision stand) “Midnight Judge” William Marbury Secretary of State James Madison

Cohens v. Virginia, 1821 Issue Background Outcome Federal jurisdiction over the states Background The Cohens were convicted in Virginia for selling illegal lottery tickets The Cohens appealed the state convictions through the federal courts Outcome Supreme Court asserted its power to review state court decisions

Fletcher v. Peck, 1810 Issue Background Outcome Contract law Corrupt Georgia legislature granted land to speculators in exchange for bribes (“Yazoo Land Scandal”) After election, new Georgia legislature canceled the deal Outcome S.C. upheld land grants Sanctity of contracts (no matter how they were formed) Victory of “wealth and privilege” over “mob” wanting wealth redistribution Yazoo Land Grants

Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 1819 Issue Contract law Background Dartmouth was created by a royal charter from King George III New Hampshire tried to place college under state control Outcome S.C. ruled that the college charter stands Sanctity of contracts Laissez-faire (government shouldn’t interfere with private enterprise)

McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819 Issue Background Decision National supremacy Interstate commerce National bank Background Maryland hated the national bank, so it imposed a tax on the bank’s branch in Maryland Decision National bank is constitutional under the “necessary & proper” (elastic) clause “The power to tax is the power to destroy”… therefore Maryland cannot be given the power to tax the national government Established national supremacy over the states

Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824 Issue Background Decision Interstate commerce Gibbons and Ogden ran competing steamboat companies that ferried goods from state to state Ogden, who had the exclusive NJ state monopoly license, sued in order to shut down Gibbons, who had a federal license Decision Only the federal government (not states) may regulate interstate commerce National supremacy over the states Gibbons (federal license) won

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831 Issue Native American sovereignty Background U.S. constitution failed to clearly define relationship between tribal governments and federal government Decision S.C. ruled that tribes are “domestic dependent nations” with some rights but not complete sovereignty Cherokee Chief John Ross

Indian Removal on the Trail of Tears Worchester v. Georgia, 1832 Issue Native American sovereignty Background Georgia passed Indian Removal Act to displace Cherokees and other tribes Cherokees sued, arguing that Georgia had no jurisdiction Decision S.C. ruled in favor of Cherokees… …but President Andrew Jackson ignored the court’s decision: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” Indians were removed along the “Trail of Tears” to Oklahoma reservations Indian Removal on the Trail of Tears

Review: Main Ideas National supremacy Economic growth Independence and power of judicial branch Key Cases Marbury v. Madison: judicial review McCulloch v. Maryland: national supremacy, national bank Gibbons v. Ogden: national supremacy, interstate commerce

historywithmrjohnson.weebly.com

Charles R. Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 1837 Issue Contract law Background Charles River Bridge Co. believed that its contract gave it monopoly rights Charles River Bridge sued to stop construction of competing, nearby Warren Bridge Outcome Monopoly contract fails Reversal of previous contract decisions allowed for more competition (note: Taney, not Marshall, Court decision) Old Charles River Bridge New Warren Bridge