Name':..-
Period:..-
_
Direction:
Read this court case. Pay close attention to the historical background, circumstances ofthe case,
and the constitutional issues involved. . 1. Circle all words that you do not understand. 2. On the margin, define
these words. J. Underline or highlight THE CONSTITUTIONAL issue. *4. Answer the questions on the back.
'Close Up on the Supreme Court Landmark Cases
Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824
Historical Background
T
he McCulloch v. Maryland decision in
1819 fanned the flames of controversy
over States' rights and national
supremacy. By 1824, Chief Justice John Mar­
shall had reached the zenith of his historic
tenure on the Court and was perfectly willing
to consider the most difficult areas of law.
As the American frontier moved west and set­
tlers pushed beyond the Appalachians into the
Ohio and Mississippi river valleys, the question
of commercial development became very impor­
tant. In 1811, the National Government began
construction of the great National Road to the
west through the Cumberland Gap, and State
governments engaged in a frenzy of canal build­
ing, capped by New York State's 3'63-mile won­
der, the Erie Canal. Taxation and regulation of
commerce through transportation was an
important source of State income in the early
years of the Republic, 'a'nd .intersrate rivalries
over rights to license and collect fees from trans­
portation services became heated. In'tense eco­
nomic pressures mounted as some businessmen
called for more free trade while other argued for
Stares' rights in the management of internal
matters of the State.
A passenger steamboat from the 18005.
by either State. Because Gibbons had no Nell'
York license, Ogden asked the New York courts
to issue an injunction forbidding him landing
rights to the port of New York. The New York
courts issued the injunction.
Gibbons appealed to the U.S. courts, arguing
that his possession of a federal coasting license
superseded the licensing requirements of Nell
York State.
Constitutional Issues
The major debate involved the meaning oi .-\/"fl·
cle I, Section 8-specifically, the Commerce
. Clause. What was the meaning of the word COlli­
merce in the Constitution? What exactly could
Circumstances of the Case
the Federal Government regulate under that pro­
In 1807, Robert Fulton's steamboat, the North
vision? Was the carrying of passengers a forrn 01
River Steamboat, successfu 11 y na viga ted the . commerce? Should the word commerce be rend
Hudson River in New York. Fulton and his
narrowly (that is, boxes and barrels) or broadly
partner, Robert Livingston, negotiated a deal
(to include all forms of business relations for the
whereby the New York State legislature would
purpose of trade)? Were the steamboat licenses
grant them an exclusive, long-term contract to
ofthe State'of New York in conflict with th('
operate and license all steam-powered vessels in
National Government's authority to regulate
the waters of New York. Aaron Ogden commerce? If so, was the requirement ior all
obtained a license from Livingston to operate
steamships in New York waters to be licensed b.
steam-powered ferryboats on the Hudson River
that State constitutional?
between New York -arid New Jersey. Mean­
Arguments
while, in New.jersey, Thomas Gibbons made
his living carrying passengers by steamboat
For Gibbons: The Court was urged to take ~1
from the small town of Elizabethtown, New
broad view of the word commerce, which
Jersey to New York City. Gibbons operated
would subject passengers on interstate tr a ns­
under a coasting license granted by the Federal
ports as well as other tangible items of 120111­
Government, rather than under a license issued
merce to federal regulation. Presenters argued
30
Close Up on the Supreme Court Landmark Cases
~-~
-_..
~-~--~-------
.. ~_.- ..
--- . -
--~
.. _--_._---~_._.-~_...
that. the.federal coasting license. superseded any
-New York regulation;' because the Commerce
Clause gives the Federal' Government exclusive
control over interstate commerce."
'
------_.__.. _---------- -----------­
since it conflicted with the regulatory power of
th~ Federal Government in the performance of
its constitutional responsibilities, The Coun
ruledthat Gibbons must be alJowed to operate
within-the waters of New York State.
. As in' the McCuiloch decision, Marshal I
again ~sserted his belief in the supremacy of the
Federal Government and its laws over those of
the States." ... [T]he act of a State inhibiting the
For OgdenrThe Court was urged to take a nar­
row view ,of the word' commerce: As a sever­
eign State, New York was fully empowered 'to
regulate 'business within its boundaries. New
York had granted Ogden a legal exclusi ve fran­
,
'use of [waters .or ports] to any vessel having a
chise, and anyonewho.wanted to operate a
',.
"
" '·license under the act of Congress, comes, we
,
steam-powered
.
' . . vessel-in.
';
'" New York
. -. harbor,'
Id .'> tthiIU k , ',IU diIrec til"
co ISlon " WIith th e const!it uWith landwg. rights IU ~ew YorkCity; WOll,' tional prerogatives granted to Congress under
hd~dve to p.ay hlfm for t.hehflhght·NNe:v YolrkGs efforr» the' 'Commerce Clause. Thus, Marshall
I not inter ere Wit i t e anonai : ,overn­
declared," ... the acts of New York must yield
h" I
fC
"
ment'seffort to regulate commerce. The 'Fed­
to
tne taw o
ongress ....
'
d
'
h
'
d
'
era I an State governme,nts a concurrent
,As aresult of this decision, State-licensed
power over commerce:
-. monopolies on island waterways ended and
Decision and Rationale
business competition was encouraged. In 1837)
, the Court, under Chief Justice Roger B. Taney,
Chief Justice' Marshallde!ivered the opinion of "would go one step further and effectively elirni­
a unanirnousIe-D) Court siding with Gibbons.
nate State-licensed monopolies across the board
On the' definition of commerce,the" Court
(in Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge).
broadly declared, "Commerce, undoubtedly, is
The Gibbons decision established for all time
traffic,: but it is something more: it 'is inter­
the supremacy of the National Government in
course. It describes the' commercial intercourse
allmatters 'affecting interstate and foreign com­
between nations, and' parts of natio~s;-'inall"'its " merce, The Marshall Court's broad reading of
branches; arid is -regulated! by p~escribing'rules' .• theCornrnerce Clause gave it a legal elasriciry
for carrying on that.intercourse."
.... ~."
that was laterextended to include federal regu­
The decision c~lled Gibb~n~'s federal license a ,Iation ofrailways, airlines, pipelines, television
legitimate exercise of the regulatiorrof cQm-, stations, telephone communication, and even
merce provided in Article I, Section 8 ofthe
racial segregation. Many constitutional schol­
Constitution, The New York State law creating ... ars consider Marshall's opinion in the Gibbons
a commercial monopoly-was therefore void"
case the Chief]ustice's finest.
1. Why would an-advocate of States' right want to have a narrow view, or strict construction, of the
commerce power?
2. Why would a national supremacy supporter want to have the Court make a broad construction of the
commerce power?
3.
What are some other areas of federal commerce regulation that have their founda in the Gibbons case?