Chief Justice John Marshall The Marshall Court Chief Justice John Marshall Had been Sec. of State under Adams (hero of the XYZ Affair) The longest serving Chief Justice in U.S. History 1801-1835 Appointed by John Adams Marshall was a Federalist Marshall has been credited with cementing the position of the judiciary as an independent and influential branch of government He shaped the balance of power between the federal government and the states during the early years of the republic

Marbury vs. Madison William Marbury How the case developed: Feb. 1801 Lame duck President John Adams made last minute appointments to the Federal Courts before leaving office The Senate confirmed the appointments on March 2nd and Pres. Adams signed them late into the night of March 3rd ; “Midnight Appointments” Sec. of State John Marshall oversaw the delivery of the documents or commissions William Marbury petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for his commission which was not delivered William Marbury

The Players The Constitutional Crisis: President Jefferson John Marshall James Madison The Constitutional Crisis: Marbury petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court (with new Chief Justice John Marshall) to order/force Madison (new Sec. of State) to give him the commission; He claimed the Judiciary Act 1789 granted the Supreme Court the power to do so Marshall did not believe the Supreme Court should act like a lower court but should be a court of last resort and the highest court in the land

Judicial Review is Established The U.S. Supreme Court declared Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. The court was intended to be the Highest Court in the Land- not a trial court. Significance: This was the first time the U.S. Supreme Court declared a law of Congress unconstitutional Established the concept of Judicial Review- the idea that courts may oversee and nullify laws of Congress when they conflict with the Constitution Marbury did not get his commission

Goals of the Marshall Court Increase the power of the Federal Government Diminish the power of the states Advance the Federalist principle of centralization

Fletcher vs. Peck 1810 How the Case developed: 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 1810 The Constitutional Question: Could the contract between Fletcher and Peck be invalidated by an act of the Georgia legislature? Conclusion:  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.

Fletcher vs. Peck 1810 Historical Significance: First time the U.S. Supreme Court declared a state law unconstitutional U.S. Supreme Court declared the Georgia Repeal Act of 1796 unconstitutional (infringement of a valid contract- developed from the Yazoo Land fraud in GA) The reaction in Congress to Marshall's decision was quite hostile (Congress is dominated by Jeffersonian Republicans, and Marshall and the parties in the case were reviled Federalists), but Congress appeared confused and divided about how to respond to the Court’s decision.

McCullough vs. Maryland 1819 How the case developed:  In 1816, Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States. In 1818, the state of 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 Constitutional Question:  The case presented two questions: Did Congress have the authority to establish the bank? Did the Maryland law unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers?

McCullough vs. Maryland 1819 Conclusion:  In a unanimous decision the Court held that: The Federal government was created by the people not the states and therefore was SUPREME The Constitution did not give Congress power directly to create a bank but it did say they could do whatever was “necessary” under Article I Section 8 Clause 18 Since Congress can borrow money, they could constitutional create the bank Historical Significance: Marshall upheld 2 important constitutional principals: Implied Powers Doctrine The Necessary and Proper Clause allows the Constitution to be a “living document” National Supremacy; states cannot interfere with the constitutional operations of the Federal Government

Dartmouth vs. Woodward 1819 How the case developed: In 1769 the King of England granted a charter to Dartmouth College. This document spelled out the purpose of the school, set up the structure to govern it, and gave land to the college. In 1816, the state legislature of New Hampshire passed laws that revised the charter. These laws changed the school from private to public. They changed the duties of the trustees. They changed how the trustees were selected. The existing trustees filed suit. They claimed that the legislature violated the Constitution. They said that Article 1, Section 10, of the Constitution prevented a state from "impairing" (that is, weakening or canceling) a contract.

Dartmouth vs. Woodward 1819 The Constitutional Question: The case presented two questions: Is a charter a contract? Did these changes violate Article I Section 10 of the Constitution? Did the Constitution’s contract clause protect private corporate charters like that of Dartmouth College? The Dartmouth Charter

Dartmouth vs. Woodward 1819 The Decision By a 5-1 margin, the Court agreed with Dartmouth. The Court struck down the law, so Dartmouth continued as a private college. Chief Justice Marshall wrote the majority opinion. He said that the charter was, in essence, a contract between the King and the trustees. Even though we were no longer a royal colony, the contract is still valid because the Constitution says that a state cannot pass laws to impair a contract.

Dartmouth vs. Woodward 1819 Historical Significance: The U.S. Supreme Court can invalidate state laws when they are found to be unconstitutional Historians believe that the decision greatly encouraged business investment and growth. Corporations are also chartered by states. States can't pass laws to impair those charters. Businesses are more secure. They are also more apt to attract investors, employ workers, and to add to the national prosperity.

Gibbons vs. Ogden 1824 How the case developed: Thomas Gibbons was operating a competing ferry service which had been licensed by Congress in regulating the coasting trade. Ogden obtained the right to operate steamboats from New York state between NJ and NY. Ogden wanted NY to issue an injunction to order Gibbons to discontinue his business. Gibbons then sued and the case eventually was appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Constitutional Questions:  1. What did “commerce” include: 2. Did Congress have the power under Article I section 8 (the commerce clause) to regulate navigation? 3. Did Congress hold exclusive power or did the states also have the power to regulate trade within their boundaries?

Gibbons vs. Ogden 1824 The Decision The court ruled for Gibbons and defined commerce BROADLY; commerce is more than traffic The New York law was declared invalid Historical Significance: Upheld National Supremacy; states cannot interfere with the constitutional operations of the Federal Government Established a basic precedent and paved the way for future government regulation of business and industry

The Legacy of the Marshall Court The court established the principle that state laws are invalid when they conflict with the Constitution The court increased the Federal Government’s role in promoting the economic growth of the United States The court guaranteed protection for corporations and other private institutions from government interference.