Marshall Supreme Court Cases

Marbury v. Madison
Date: /
  • March 2, 1801
  • Feb. 24, 1803

Summary of Events - What is the legal question? (In your own words) /
  • 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 writofmandamus, 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?

Decision: /
  • The Court decided that Marbury’s request for a writof 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

Outcome and Explanation: /
  • 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: /
  • 1803
  • 1810

Summary of Events - What is the legal question? (In your own words) /
  • 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  • In 1796, new legislature rescinded the sale of the land because of widespread fraud and bribery that influenced the original sale of the thirty-five million acres.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?

Decision: /
  • 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?
Thewords themselves contain no such distinction. They are general, and are
applicableto contracts of every description."
Outcome and Explanation: /
  • 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: /
  • 1816
  • February 2, 1819

Summary of Events - What is the legal question? (In your own words) /
  • Dartmouth College was established in 1769 under a corporate charter from KingGeorge 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?

Decision: /
  • 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 NewHampshire was bound to respect the original charter.

Outcome and Explanation: /
  • 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 oflaw. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of itscreation confers upon it, either expressly or as incidental to its very existence. These are such asare supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created. Among the mostimportant are immortality, and, if the expression may be allowed, individuality; properties bywhich a perpetual succession of many persons are considered as the same, and may act as asingle individual. They enable a corporation to manage its own affairs and to hold property
McCullough v. Maryland
Date: /
  • April 8, 1816 - Congress of the United States act
  • February 11, 1818, the General Assembly of Maryland passed act
  • 1819

Summary of Events - What is the legal question? (In your own words) /
  • 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?

Decision: /
  • 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: /
  • 1808 – Livingston & Fulton granted exclusdivepriviledges to NY Sates waters
  • 1815 – Gibbons purchased liscense from Fult & Livingston - into business with Ogden
  • Argued February 5, 1824 - Decided March 2, 1824

Summary of Events - What is the legal question? (In your own words) /
  • 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?

Decision: /
  • 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.

Outcome and Explanation: /
  • 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: /
  • Decided March 18, 1831
  • The court ruling resulted in the expulsion of the Cherokee nation

Summary of Events - What is the legal question? (In your own words) /
  • 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?

Decision: /
  • 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

Outcome and Explanation: /
  • 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 toenforce decision. "John Marshall made his decision; now let him enforce it."