Supreme Court Cases: The Marshall Court- Establishing Federal Supremacy

1
Supreme Court CasesThe Marshall Court-
Establishing Federal Supremacy
Main Cases

• Marbury v Madison (1803)
• McCulloch v Maryland (1819)
• Gibbons v Ogden (1824)

2
Judiciary Act of 1789

• 1789 law that created the Judicial Branch of the
  federal government.
• Things provided for in the Act

• the number of members of the Supreme Court (6)
• the number of lower district courts (13)
• the idea that the Supreme Court can settle
  disputes between states
• the idea that a decision by the Supreme Court is
  final.

3
Judiciary Act of 1801

• Gave the President the power to appoint more
  federal judges.

4
Marbury v Madison (1803)
Historical Context
-In November 1800, Federalist President John
Adams lost his re-election bid to Anti-Federalist
Thomas Jefferson.
- Last minute, Adams appointed several Federalist
federal judges who were then approved by the
Senate.
-Knowing this, when Jefferson became President,
he ordered Sec. Of State James Madison not to
deliver the commission to William Marbury
-Marbury sued Madison in an attempt to gain his
post.
-Marbury asked the Supreme Court to rule on the
case
5
Issue

• Whether Marbury deserved the Commission
• Whether the Supreme Court could remedy his problem

6
Decision
-The Supreme Court and James Marshall found that
the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional because
it gave the powers to the SC and the
Constitution does not give Congress the power to
do that
-Established the precedent that the SC has the
final say on all laws (Judicial Review)
-Winner John Marshall-strengthened the power of
the SC
7
Legacy of Marbury Case

• Established Judicial Review
• More Power to Judicial Branch
• Marshall Court Strengthen the power of the
  federal government

8
McCulloch v Maryland (1819)
Historical Context
-The state of Maryland brought an action against
James 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 US Bank.
9
Issue
Whether the state of Maryland had the right to
tax a federal agency which was properly set up by
the US Congress.
10
Decision
The Court ruled that the power to tax is the
power to destroy and that the federal
governments bank was immune to state taxation.
The Court reasoned that Congress could set up a
bank and write laws necessary and proper
according to its constitutional power to coin
and regulate money.
11
Other Significant Cases of the Marshall Court
Gibbons v Ogden (1824)- SC established broad
interpretation of the federal governments
authority over interstate commerce
12
The Case

• Aaron Ogden filed a complaint in the Court of
  Chancery of New York asking the court to restrain
  Thomas Gibbons from operating on these waters.
  Ogden's lawyer contended that states often passed
  laws on issues regarding interstate matters and
  that states should have fully concurrent power
  with Congress on matters concerning interstate
  commerce.
• Gibbons' lawyer, Daniel Webster, argued that
  Congress had exclusive national power over
  interstate commerce according to Article I,
  Section 8 of the Constitution and that to argue
  otherwise would result in confusing and
  contradictory local regulatory policies.
• The Court of Chancery of New York and the Court
  of Errors of New York found in favor of Ogden and
  issued an injunction to restrict Gibbons from
  operating his boats. Gibbons appealed the case to
  the Supreme Court, which reversed the decision.

13
The Decision

• The decision called Gibbons's federal license a
  legitimate exercise of the regulation of commerce
  provided in Article I, Section 8 of the
  Constitution. The New York State law creating a
  commercial monopoly was therefore void, since it
  conflicted with the regulatory power of the
  Federal Government in the performance of its
  constitutional responsibilities. The Court ruled
  that Gibbons must be allowed to operate within
  the waters of New York State.

14
Dred Scott v Sanford (1757)

• Historical Context
• Dredd Scott was a slave who forever changed the
  definition of property. He went with his master
  to Illinois and Minnesota and claimed that this
  made him a free man. The Missouri Supreme Court
  found otherwise. Scott, sued his new owner, John
  Sanford of New York, for damages, alleging
  physical abuse. A federal court ruled that Scott
  was a citizen. But the Supreme Court ruled
  otherwise. Chief Justice Roger Taney, in an 1857
  plurality opinion, said that African-Americans
  could never become United States citizens and
  that the Missouri Compromise was
  unconstitutional. Further, the Court said,
  Congress could not constitutionally exclude
  slavery from the territories.

15
Issue

• Since the Missouri Compromise outlawed slavery in
  newly established territories and Scott moved
  with his owner to Minnesota, he was then
  considered a free man. The SC ruled against
  Scott stating that property does not have rights
  therefore Scotts claims of abuse were not valid

16
Decision

• The Supreme Court ruled otherwise. Chief Justice
  Roger Taney, in an 1857 said that
  African-Americans could never become United
  States citizens and that the Missouri Compromise
  was unconstitutional. Further, the Court said,
  Congress could not constitutionally exclude
  slavery from the territories.

17
Review Questions

• What did Marbury v Madison establish?
• What powers were strengthened by Marshall Court
  decisions?