Gibbons v. Ogden

For more information on Gibbons v. Ogden, visit Britannica.com.

9 Wheat. (22 U.S.) 1 (1824), argued 4–9 Feb. 1824, decided 2 Mar. 1824 by vote of 6 to 0; Marshall for the Court, Johnson concurring. It was thirty‐five years after ratification of the Constitution before the Supreme Court decided a case related to the clause empowering Congress to regulate interstate and foreign commerce (Article I, sec. 8). In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), Chief Justice John Marshall delivered an opinion that was a classic statement of nationalism. Over the years, it became a source of extensive authority for Congress to address new problems in the regulation of the national economy. Judges and lawyers would analyze it to explain the distribution of powers between nation and states in the American federal system (see Federalism).

The case arose during the early days of the steamboat. In 1807, Robert Fulton, the most successful of the many inventors seeking a practical steam‐propelled craft, ran his boat up the Hudson River at the speed prescribed by a New York law and thereby acquired a monopoly of steam navigation on the state's waters. Ambitious interlopers challenged this monopoly, which led to lively litigation. One line of cases involved Aaron Ogden, who held a state‐required Fulton‐Livingston license, and Thomas Gibbons, who held a federal coasting license and ran competing boats between New Jersey and Manhattan. The New York courts repeatedly upheld the monopoly against such competition (Livingston v. Van Ingen, 1812, and Gibbons v. Ogden, 1820). By 1824 the dispute reached the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal.

Daniel Webster made the principal argument for Gibbons. He set out the options for interpreting the Constitution in matters concerning state and national powers over interstate commerce: (1) exclusive national power; (2) fully concurrent state and national powers (see Concurrent Power); (3) partially concurrent state power not reaching “higher branches” of that commerce; and (4) supremacy of a national statute over a contrary state statute. In arguing for the first of these, Webster construed commerce broadly and warned against a tangle of conflicting local policies. One of Ogden's counsel, Thomas Emmet, insisted that states had frequently legislated on many interstate matters and ought to have fully concurrent power over commerce between the states.

Marshall spoke for the entire Court, except William Johnson, who filed a concurring opinion. Marshall plainly preferred the exclusive option. He defined commerce expansively, far beyond mere exchange of goods, to include persons and new subjects such as the steamboat. Nevertheless, he held back from deciding the case on exclusivity grounds, probably because of the possible impact such a broad reading of federal power might have on slaveholding states, nervous as they were about federal authority (see Slavery). But Justice Johnson, a South Carolinian who was a fervent nationalist on this question, adopted that option. In the actual holding, Marshall construed Gibbons's federal license to nullify the New York grant of monopoly. He saw a conflict of congressional and state statutes, thus selecting the narrowest strategy and postponing a more comprehensive ruling.

Lawyers and judges explored this question in several cases over the next quarter‐century and finally arrived at a compromise formula that acknowledged a partially concurrent state power over interstate commerce. In Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1852), the Taney Court decided that some subjects of commerce required a uniform rule and national uniformity, while others permitted a degree of state action. However, Cooley's general formulation left many specifics unclear (see Selective Exclusiveness).

During its conservative periods, the Court expressed hostility to both national and state regulatory powers. For example, in the late nineteenth century, both state railroad regulation and national antitrust reform suffered from narrow and tortured readings of the Commerce Clause. This judicial negativism persisted until the 1930s, albeit with respectful citations to Gibbons. After the constitutional revolution that began in 1937, the Court read the steamboat case differently to permit almost unlimited federal power, whether for regulating the economy or, as in Marshall's time, for stimulating its growth. Entirely new uses for the commerce power, notably protection of civil rights, have emerged. At the same time, the Court has allowed a broad field for state legislation, no doubt much broader than Chief Justice Marshall would have favored.

Bibliography

• Maurice G. Baxter, The Steamboat Monopoly: Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824 (1972)

— Maurice G. Baxter

• 9 Wheat. 1 (1824)
• Vote: 6–0
• For the Court: Marshall
• Concurring: JohnsonIn 1807 Robert Fulton made the first successful steamboat run from New York City to Albany. The New York legislature soon granted Fulton and a partner the exclusive right to navigate the waters of New York State. In turn, Fulton and his partner sold Aaron Ogden the right to operate between New York City and the New Jersey shore of the Hudson River.

Meanwhile, Thomas Gibbons secured a license from the U.S. Congress to run two steamships between New York and New Jersey. Competition between Gibbons and Ogden became fierce. Finally, Ogden petitioned a New York state court to order Gibbons to discontinue his business. The state court decided in Ogden's favor, and Gibbons appealed the New York court's decision to the Supreme Court.

The Issue

Gibbons argued that under the Constitution, Congress had complete power to regulate interstate commerce. Therefore, his federal license to operate steamboats remained valid despite the ruling of the New York State court. Ogden countered that the congressional commerce power applied only to the transportation and sale of goods, not to navigation. Therefore, he argued, his New York license should prevail and invalidate Gibbons's license. The case raised two issues. First, what did “commerce” include? Did Congress have the power under the commerce clause (Article 1, Section 8) to regulate navigation? Second, did Congress hold an exclusive power or did the states also possess the power to regulate interstate commerce within their boundaries?

Opinion of the Court

Chief Justice John Marshall wrote for the Court, which ruled in favor of Gibbons. In doing so, it defined the term commerce broadly. Commerce is more than traffic, the Court said. It includes all kinds of business and trade “between nations and parts of nations [the states],” including navigation.

The Court also ruled that should a state law regulating commerce interfere with a federal law, the federal law was always supreme. Consequently, the New York law giving Ogden his monopoly was invalid because it interfered with the federal law under which Gibbons had acquired his license.

The Court did not, however, resolve the second issue in the case—whether states could regulate areas of commerce Congress had not regulated. Nor did the Court decide whether the states could simultaneously regulate commerce that the Congress was regulating. These issues would have to wait several decades to be settled by additional Court rulings.

Significance

The Gibbons case established a basic precedent because it paved the way for later federal regulation of transportation, communication, buying and selling, and manufacturing. In the 20th century, for example, the Court has ruled that the commerce clause permits Congress to fine a farmer for producing a small amount of wheat for his own use in violation of the quota set by the Department of Agriculture. Little economic activity remains outside the regulatory power of Congress today.

See also Commerce power

Sources

• Maurice G. Baxter, The Steamboat Monopoly, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824 (Philadelphia: Philadelphia Book Co., 1972).
• George Dangerfield, “The Steamboat Case”, in Quarrels That Have Shaped the Constitution, edited by John A. Garraty (New York: Harper & Row, 1987)

Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheaton 1 (1824), a Supreme Court case that, for the first time since ratification of the U. S. Constitution, explicated the meaning of Article I, section 8, which gave Congress the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. Before the case was decided, it was common for states to legislate in matters that touched on commerce between states, and it was not clear whether navigation or transportation should be deemed "commerce." Chief Justice John Marshall, in one of his most famous decisions, made a powerful statement of the scope of Congress's power. In language that would be quoted countless times in future Supreme Court opinions, he insisted that it was wrong to "contend for that narrow construction which, in support of some theory not to be found in the Constitution, would deny to the government those powers which the words of the grant, as usually understood, import, and which are consistent with the general views and objects of the instrument." Marshall went on to state: "All America understands, and has uniformly understood, the word 'commerce' to comprehend navigation. …The power over commerce, including navigation, was one of the primary objects for which the people of America adopted their government, and must have been contemplated in forming it."

The dispute in the case was whether the New York legislature's grant of an exclusive monopoly to operate steamboats to Aaron Ogden could prevail over a federal law, under the authority of which Thomas Gibbons was running steamboats in competition with those of Ogden. Marshall held that the New York statute under which Ogden sought to exclude competition from Gibbons was an unconstitutional infringement of interstate commerce. Finding that a federal statute had provisions that applied to steamboats, Marshall declared New York's legislation granting Gibbons an exclusive license to operate steamboats barred. Marshall's opinion in Gibbons left open the question of the extent to which states could regulate interstate commerce if Congress had failed to act, and this became an important issue in future commerce clause litigation. Marshall's expansive reading in Gibbons, however, and his rejection of "strict construction" was frequently invoked in the late twentieth century to permit federal intrusion into many areas formerly regarded as the exclusive prerogative of state and local governments.

Bibliography

Baxter, Maurice G. The Steamboat Monopoly: Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824. New York: Knopf, 1972.

Frankfurter, Felix. The Commerce Clause under Marshall, Taney, and Waite. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1937.

Kmiec, Douglas W., and Stephen B. Presser. The American Constitutional Order: History, Cases, and Philosophy. Cincinnati: Anderson, 1998.

—Stephen B. Presser

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 6 L. Ed. 23, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court that defined the scope of power given to Congress pursuant to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

In 1800, the state of New York enacted a statute that gave Robert Livingston and Robert Fulton a monopoly — an exclusive right — to have their steamboats operate on the state waterways. Aaron Ogden owned a steamboat company and had received a license from Livingston and Fulton to conduct a business between ports in New York City and New Jersey. Ogden had formerly been in business with Thomas Gibbons, who started his own steamship company that operated between New York and New Jersey, in direct competition with Ogden.

Ogden brought an action to enjoin Gibbons from continuing to run his steamships, which were licensed in the coastal trade under a 1793 act of Congress. The state courts granted Ogden the injunction, and the case was brought on appeal to the Supreme Court.

Daniel Webster, the attorney for Gibbons, argued that the issuance of the injunction was wrongful since the laws that authorized the monopoly were enacted in violation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. This clause gave Congress, not the states, the power to regulate commerce among the states. The term commerce included not only buying and selling but also navigation necessary to bring about such transactions.

In the majority opinion drafted by Chief Justice John Marshall, the Court agreed with this definition of commerce and then reasoned that since Congress was vested with the power to regulate commerce, there could be no infringement of this power other than that specified in the Constitution. States cannot act in this area without express permission of Congress. The actions of New York State were an unauthorized interference with the power of Congress to regulate commerce, and therefore, the Court reversed the decree of the state court and dismissed the injunction against Gibbons.

by John Marshall, 1824

With the invention of the steamboat, the boating trade along the waterways between the Eastern states became a profitable commercial enterprise. The New York legislature granted an exclusive right to operate steamboats in New York waters to steamboat engineers Robert Livingston and Robert Fulton, who then assigned part of their rights to Aaron Ogden. A former partner of Ogden, Thomas Gibbons, entered the trade in violation of the monopoly grant, and Ogden sought redress through the courts. In holding the monopoly invalid, Chief Justice John Marshall first interpreted the commerce clause of the Constitution as extending the power of Congress to navigation between the states. He then held that the states, though having the power to police their internal affairs, could not infringe upon Congress' control over interstate commerce. Since a federal law existed that appeared to regulate "vessels employed in the coasting trade," New York could not constitutionally enact the monopoly regulation covering the same area. Marshall's broad interpretation of the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution was strictly in accord with his strong nationalism.

The appellant contends that this decree is erroneous because the laws which purport to give the exclusive privilege it sustains are repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States. They are said to be repugnant: first, to that clause in the Constitution which authorizes Congress to regulate commerce; second, to that which authorizes Congress to promote the progress of science and useful arts. ...

As preliminary to the very able discussions of the Constitution which we have heard from the bar, and as having some influence on its construction, reference has been made to the political situation of these states, anterior to its formation. It has been said that they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true. But, when these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their congress of ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, and to recommend measures of general utility, into a legislature, empowered to enact laws on the most interesting subjects, the whole character in which the states appear underwent a change, the extent of which must be determined by a fair consideration of the instrument by which that change was effected.

This instrument contains an enumeration of powers expressly granted by the people to their government. It has been said that these powers ought to be construed strictly. But why ought they to be so construed? Is there one sentence in the Constitution which gives countenance to this rule? In the last of the enumerated powers, that which grants, expressly, the means for carrying all others into execution, Congress is authorized "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper" for the purpose. But this limitation on the means which may be used is not extended to the powers which are conferred; nor is there one sentence in the Constitution, which has been pointed out by the gentlemen of the bar, or which we have been able to discern, that prescribes this rule. We do not, therefore, think ourselves justified in adopting it.

What do gentlemen mean by a strict construction? If they contend only against that enlarged construction which would extend words beyond their natural and obvious import, we might question the application of the term, but should not controvert the principle. If they contend for that narrow construction which, in support of some theory not to be found in the Constitution, would deny to the government those powers which the words of the grant, as usually understood, import, and which are consistent with the general views and objects of the instrument; for that narrow construction, which would cripple the government, and render it unequal to the objects for which it is declared to be instituted, and to which the powers given, as fairly understood, render it competent; then we cannot perceive the propriety of this strict construction, nor adopt it as the rule by which the Constitution is to be expounded. As men whose intentions require no concealment generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intend to convey, the enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said. ...

If, from the imperfection of human language, there should be serious doubts respecting the extent of any given power, it is a well-settled rule that the objects for which it was given, especially when those objects are expressed in the instrument itself, should have great influence in the construction. We know of no reason for excluding this rule from the present case. The grant does not convey power which might be beneficial to the grantor, if retained by himself, or which can inure solely to the benefit of the grantee, but is an investment of power for the general advantage in the hands of agents selected for that purpose; which power can never be exercised by the people themselves, but must be placed in the hands of agents, or lie dormant. We know of no rule for construing the extent of such powers other than is given by the language of the instrument which confers them, taken in connection with the purposes for which they were conferred.

The words are: "Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." The subject to be regulated is commerce; and our Constitution being, as was aptly said at the bar, one of enumeration and not of definition, to ascertain the extent of the power it becomes necessary to settle the meaning of the word. ...

Commerce, undoutedly, is traffic, but it is something more - it is intercourse. It describes the commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of nations, in all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse. The mind can scarcely conceive a system for regulating commerce between nations which shall exclude all laws concerning navigation, which shall be silent on the admission of the vessels of the one nation into the ports of the other, and be confined to prescribing rules for the conduct of individuals in the actual employment of buying and selling or of barter. If commerce does not include navigation, the government of the Union has no direct power over that subject, and can make no law prescribing what shall constitute American vessels, or requiring that they shall be navigated by American seamen.

Yet this power has been exercised from the commencement of the government, has been exercised with the consent of all, and has been understood by all to be a commercial regulation. All America understands, and has uniformly understood, the word "commerce" to comprehend navigation. ...

The word used in the Constitution, then, comprehends, and has been always understood to comprehend, navigation within its meaning; and a power to regulate navigation is as expressly granted as if that term had been added to the word "commerce." To what commerce does this power extend? The Constitution informs us to commerce "with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." It has, we believe, been universally admitted that these words comprehend every species of commercial intercourse between the United States and foreign nations. No sort of trade can be carried on between this country and any other to which this power does not extend. It has been truly said that commerce, as the word is used in the Constitution, is a unit, every part of which is indicated by the term. If this be the admitted meaning of the word in its application to foreign nations, it must carry the same meaning throughout the sentence and remain a unit, unless there be some plain intelligible cause which alters it.

The subject to which the power is next applied is to commerce "among the several states." The word "among" means intermingled with. A thing which is among others is intermingled with them. Commerce among the states cannot stop at the external boundary line of each state, but may be introduced into the interior. It is not intended to say that these words comprehend that commerce which is completely internal, which is carried on between man and man in a state, or between different parts of the same state, and which does not extend to or affect other states. Such a power would be inconvenient and is certainly unnecessary. Comprehensive as the word "among" is, it may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more states than one. The phrase is not one which would probably have been selected to indicate the completely interior traffic of a state, because it is not an apt phrase for that purpose; and the enumeration of the particular classes of commerce to which the power was to be extended would not have been made had the intention been to extend the power to every description. The enumeration presupposes something not enumerated; and that something, if we regard the language or the subject of the sentence, must be the exclusively internal commerce of a state.

The genius and character of the whole government seem to be that its action is to be applied to all the external concerns of the nation and to those internal concerns which affect the states generally; but not to those which are completely within a particular state, which do not affect other states, and with which it is not necessary to interfere for the purpose of executing some of the general powers of the government. The completely internal commerce of a state, then, may be considered as reserved for the state itself.

But, in regulating commerce with foreign nations, the power of Congress does not stop at the jurisdictional lines of the several states. It would be a very useless power if it could not pass those lines. The commerce of the United States with foreign nations is that of the whole United States. Every district has a right to participate in it. The deep streams which penetrate our country in every direction pass through the interior of almost every state in the Union, and furnish the means of exercising this right. If Congress has the power to regulate it, that power must be exercised whenever the subject exists. If it exists within the states, if a foreign voyage may commence or terminate at a port within a state, then the power of Congress may be exercised within a state.

This principle is, if possible, still more clear, when applied to commerce "among the several states." They either join each other, in which case they are separated by a mathematical line, or they are remote from each other, in which case other states lie between them. What is commerce "among" them, and how is it to be conducted? Can a trading expedition between two adjoining states commence and terminate outside of each? And if the trading intercourse be between two states remote from each other, must it not commence in one, terminate in the other, and probably pass through a third? Commerce among the states must, of necessity, be commerce with the states. In the regulation of trade with the Indian tribes, the action of the law, especially, when the Constitution was made, was chiefly within a state.

The power of Congress, then, whatever it may be, must be exercised within the territorial jurisdiction of the several states. The sense of the nation on this subject is unequivocally manifested by the provisions made in the laws for transporting goods by land between Baltimore and Providence, between New York and Philadelphia, and between Philadelphia and Baltimore.

We are now arrived at the inquiry - What is this power? It is the power to regulate, that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution. These are expressed in plain terms and do not affect the questions which arise in this case, or which have been discussed at the bar. If, as has always been understood, the sovereignty of Congress, though limited to specified objects, is plenary as to those objects, the power over commerce with foreign nations and among the several states is vested in Congress as absolutely as it would be in a single government, having in its constitution the same restrictions on the exercise of the power as are found in the Constitution of the United States.

The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections are, in this as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely in all representative governments. The power of Congress, then, comprehends navigation within the limits of every state in the Union so far as that navigation may be, in any manner, connected with "commerce with foreign nations, or among the several States, or with the Indian tribes." It may, of consequence, pass the jurisdiction line of New York, and act upon the very waters to which the prohibition now under consideration applies.

But it has been urged with great earnestness that, although the power of Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states be coextensive with the subject itself, and have no other limits than are prescribed in the Constitution, yet the states may severally exercise the same power within their respective jurisdictions. In support of this argument, it is said that they possessed it as an inseparable attribute of sovereignty before the formation of the Constitution, and still retain it, except so far as they have surrendered it by that instrument; that this principle results from the nature of the government, and is secured by the Tenth Amendment; that an affirmative grant of power is not exclusive, unless in its own nature it be such that the continued exercise of it by the former possessor is inconsistent with the grant, and that this is not of that description.

The appellant, conceding these postulates except the last, contends that full power to regulate a particular subject implies the whole power and leaves no residuum; that a grant of the whole is incompatible with the existence of a right in another to any part of it. Both parties have appealed to the Constitution, to legislative acts, and judicial decisions; and have drawn arguments from all these sources to support and illustrate the propositions they respectively maintain. ...

In discussing the question, whether this power is still in the states, in the case under consideration, we may dismiss from it the inquiry, whether it is surrendered by the mere grant to Congress, or is retained until Congress shall exercise the power. We may dismiss that inquiry because it has been exercised, and the regulations which Congress deemed it proper to make are now in full operation. The sole question is - Can a state regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states while Congress is regulating it?

The counsel for the respondent answer this question in the affirmative, and rely very much on the restrictions in the 10th Section as supporting their opinion. They say, very truly, that limitations of a power furnish a strong argument in favor of the existence of that power, and that the section which prohibits the states from laying duties on imports or exports proves that this power might have been exercised had it not been expressly forbidden; and, consequently, that any other commercial regulation, not expressly forbidden, to which the original power of the state was competent, may still be made. That this restriction shows the opinion of the Convention, that a state might impose duties on exports and imports, if not expressly forbidden, will be conceded; but that it follows, as a consequence from this concession, that a state may regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states cannot be admitted. ...

It has been contended by the counsel for the appellant that, as the word "to regulate" implies in its nature full power over the thing to be regulated, it excludes, necessarily, the action of all others that would perform the same operation on the same thing. That regulation is designed for the entire result, applying to those parts which remain as they were, as well as to those which are altered. It produces a uniform whole, which is as much disturbed and deranged by changing what the regulating power designs to leave untouched as that on which it has operated. There is great force in this argument, and the court is not satisfied that it has been refuted.

Since, however, in exercising the power of regulating their own purely internal affairs, whether of trading or police, the states may sometimes enact laws, the validity of which depends on their interfering with, and being contrary to, an act of Congress passed in pursuance of the Constitution, the court will enter upon the inquiry, whether the laws of New York, as expounded by the highest tribunal of that state, have, in their application to this case, come into collision with an act of Congress, and deprived a citizen of a right to which that act entitles him. Should this collision exist, it will be immaterial whether those laws were passed in virtue of a concurrent power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states," or in virtue of a power to regulate their domestic trade and police.

In one case and the other the acts of New York must yield to the law of Congress; and the decision sustaining the privilege they confer against a right given by a law of the Union must be erroneous. This opinion has been frequently expressed in this court, and is founded as well on the nature of the government as on the words of the Constitution. In argument, however, it has been contended that, if a law passed by a state in the exercise of its acknowledged sovereignty comes into conflict with a law passed by Congress in pursuance of the Constitution, they affect the subject and each other like equal opposing powers.

But the framers of our Constitution foresaw this state of things and provided for it by declaring the supremacy not only of itself but of the laws made in pursuance of it. The nullity of any act inconsistent with the Constitution is produced by the declaration that the Constitution is supreme law. The appropriate application of that part of the clause which confers the same supremacy on laws and treaties is to such acts of the state legislatures as do not transcend their powers, but though enacted in the execution of acknowledged state powers, interfere with, or are contrary to, the laws of Congress, made in pursuance of the Constitution or some treaty made under the authority of the United States. In every such case, the act of Congress or the treaty is supreme; and the law of the state, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it. ...

Decree ... This court is of opinion that ... so much of the several laws of the state of New York as prohibits vessels, licensed according to the laws of the United States, from navigating the waters of the state of New York, by means of fire or steam, is repugnant to the said Constitution and void. This court is, therefore, of opinion that the decree of the court of New York for the trial of impeachments and the correction of errors, affirming the decree of the chancellor of that state ... is erroneous and ought to be reversed, and the same is hereby reversed and annulled. And this court doth further direct, order, and decree that the bill of the said Aaron Ogden be dismissed, and the same is hereby dismissed accordingly.

Please help improve this article by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page. (January 2008)

Gibbons v. Ogden
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 5, 1824 Decided March 2, 1824
Full case name	Thomas Gibbons, Appellant v. Aaron Ogden, Respondent
Citations	22 U.S. 1 (more) 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1; 16 L. Ed. 23; 1824 U.S. LEXIS 370
Prior history	Appeal from the Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors of the State of New York
Holding
The New York law was found invalid because the Commerce Clause of the Constitution designated power to Congress to regulate interstate commerce and that the broad definition of commerce included navigation.
Court membership
Chief Justice John Marshall Associate Justices Bushrod Washington · William Johnson Thomas Todd · Gabriel Duvall Joseph Story · Smith Thompson
Case opinions
Majority	Marshall, joined by Washington, Todd, Duvall, Story
Concurrence	Johnson
Thompson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. I, sec.8, clause 3

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824),^[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the power to regulate interstate commerce was granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The case was argued by some of America's most admired and capable attorneys at the time. Exiled Irish patriot Thomas Addis Emmet and Thomas J. Oakley argued for Ogden, while William Wirt and Daniel Webster argued for Gibbons.

Contents 1 Case 2 Decision of the Court 3 Importance of the Case 4 References 5 External links

Case

Thomas Gibbons was operating a competing steamboat service which had been licensed by Congress in regulating the coasting trade. Ogden filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of New York asking the court to restrain Gibbons from operating his boats. 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. The monopoly, therefore, should be upheld.

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 found in favor of Ogden and issued an injunction to restrict Gibbons from operating his boats. Gibbons appealed the case to the Court of Errors of New York, which affirmed the decision. Gibbons appealed the case to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Decision of the Court

The sole argued source of Congress's power to promulgate the law at issue was the Commerce Clause. Accordingly, the Court had to answer whether the law regulated "commerce" that was "among the several states." With respect to "commerce," the Court held that commerce is more than mere traffic—that it is the trade of commodities—it is also intercourse. This broader definition includes navigation. The Court interpreted "among" as "intermingled with."

Marshall's ruling determined that "a Congressional power to regulate navigation is as expressly granted as if that term had been added to the word 'commerce'."

The Court went on to conclude that Congressional power over commerce should extend to the regulation of all aspects of it, overriding state law to the contrary:

If, as has always been understood, the sovereignty of Congress, though limited to specified objects, is plenary as to those objects, the power over commerce with foreign nations and among the several states is vested in Congress as absolutely as it would be in a single government, having in its constitution the same restrictions on the exercise of the power as are found in the Constitution of the United States.

Importance of the Case

This section called "Importance of the Case" is missing citations or needs footnotes. Please help add inline citations to guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (October 2009)

Certain people^[who?] argue that the decision in Gibbons v. Ogden survived until 1895, when the court began to limit the congressional power with the case of United States v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 1 (1895). Although this marked the start of a 40-year period of history during which the Commerce Clause was limited in scope, during the 1930s the Supreme Court returned to the broad view of the Commerce Clause originally established in Gibbons v. Ogden.

However, another group of people^[who?] hold a different view of the meaning of Commerce Clause as established in Gibbons: that it was limited in scope because the decision could be interpreted to say that navigation only pertained to the federal Commerce Clause because it was necessary to business as it allowed for the interstate transportation of goods. Therefore, these unspecified individuals view the E.C Knight not as a radical departure, but as a continuation of the original jurisprudence.

References

1. ^ 22 U.S. 1 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.

External links

• The Oyez Project, Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824)

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)