Case Studies of John Marshall

Case Studies of John Marshall

Marbury vs. Madison
At the time, two political parties, the Federalists and the Republicans were com
peting for power in the federal government. Thus, when the Republicans Thomas Jef
ferson won the election of 1800, they took control of Congress; however found th
at the Judiciary, that is the Supreme Court, was still dominated by the Federali
sts because the justices serve for life under good behavior. That is why Preside
nt John Adams, a Federalist, tried to fill up the vacancies in the Supreme Court
near the end of his term in order to secure the Federalists standing in the Judi
ciary branch. The Secretary of State during Adams administration was James Madiso
n, a Republican. It was Madisons job to deliver the Presidents commissions to the
appointees, one of who was William Marbury. Madison tried to delay the appointme
nt in order to help the Republicans and thus Marbury, knowing of his appointment
, sued Madison for failing to deliver his commission. John Marshall, the chief j
ustice, awarded Marbury the writ of mandamus, which declared that Madison should
have delivered the commission to Marshall. However, Marshall also declared that
the Judiciary Act of 1789, which allowed the Supreme Court to impose the writ o
f mandamus, was in conflict with Article III of the Constitution, and thus void.
This case is important that it defined the true power of the Supreme Court, as
well as the Judiciary branch. It showed that the courts have the power to declar
e the acts of Congress unconstitutional if they exceeded the rights given by the
Constitution. Thus, it is important to recognize the courts as the arbiters of
the Constitution, being the final authority to deem what it meant.
McCulloch vs. Maryland
Congress established the Second Bank of the United States in 1816. However, in 1
819, the state of Marylands legislature imposed some taxes on the bank. James McC
ulloch, a cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank refused to pay the taxes a
nd sued the state of Maryland for unconstitutionally interfering with the Congre
sss powers of imposing taxes. The decision of the Supreme Court was in favor of M
cCulloch, declaring that the state of Maryland could not tax the instruments of t
he national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers. This c
ase is therefore significant in the fact that it limited state rights by address
ing that congress, as well as the federal government had certain powers not expl
icitly explained in the Constitution.
Dartmouth College vs. Woodward
In 1816, the state of New Hampshires legislature decided to make amends to Dartmo
uth Colleges charter, which was originally granted by King George III in 1769. Th
e change would place the institution under the supervision of a board of oversee
rs appointed by the governor and renaming it to Dartmouth University. However, t
he New Hampshire Supreme Court, reasoning that the college was a public organiza
tion and should be subject to public control, upheld the legislatures action, cau
sing the board of trustees to bring the conflict to the Supreme Court of the Uni
ted States. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the trustees and reversed the Ne
w Hampshire Supreme Courts decision, reasoning that Dartmouth was not a public or
ganization, but a private organization with a contract, referring to the charter
. Thus, by saying that Dartmouth was a public organization was wrong in that it
came into conflict with the Constitutions Article I, Section 10, where it forbids
any state of impairing a contractual obligation. The case is very important, no
t as a precedent, but as protection for corporations, saving them from unreasona
ble and gratuitous attacks upon their privileges and property.

Gibbons vs. Ogden

In 1824, a New York state law gave two individuals the exclusive rights to opera
te steamboats on waters within the states jurisdiction. Consequently, laws like t
his one were duplicated in other states, leading to conflict, as some states wou
ld require out-of-state boats, licensed by the federal government, to pay additi
onal fees for navigation privileges in the states waters. In this case, a steambo
at owner who did business between New York and New Jersey challenged a New York
law that forced him to obtain an operating permit from the State of New York to
navigate on its waters. The Supreme Court found that New York s licensing requir
ement for out-of-state operators was inconsistent with a congressional act regul
ating the coasting trade. John Marshall reasoned that the New York law was inval
id and thus reasoned by developing a clear definition of the word commerce, whic
h included navigation on interstate waterways. He concluded that the regulations
of navigation by steamboat operators and other people for purposes of conductin
g interstate commerce was a power reserved to and exercised by Congress. This ca
se was therefore, an important precedent for future conflicts regarding intersta
te commerce in the United States and also making Congress have the power to regu
late it.

Category : Law
Views : 5634