The Supreme Court’s ruling in McCulloch v. Maryland
directly influenced the Gibbons v. Ogden case.
Explanation:
The case of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) enabled the Supreme Court to establish that Congress had implied powers under the "Necessary and Proper Clause" of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution to create the Second Bank of the United States. This ruling barred the state of Maryland from taxing the Bank, an establishment of the federal government.
In a unanimous judgement presided over by Justice Marshall, the court ruled that the Federal Government had the right and power to set up a Federal bank and that states did not have the power to tax the Federal Government or its establishment, concluding that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy."
The Facts of the case:
The branch of the federal government bank's in Baltimore, Maryland refused to pay the tax imposed by the state of Maryland. Maryland sued James McCulloch, who was the cashier of the branch, to enforce collection of the tax debt. In his response, McCulloch noted that the tax was unconstitutional. A Maryland State court ruled in favor of Maryland and the court of appeals affirmed the ruling, before it was taken to the Supreme Court, which reversed the ruling in McCulloch's favor.
The next case that benefit from the above Supreme Court judgement was the case of Gibbons v. Ogden. In Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824), another landmark decision was made by the Supreme Court of the United States in which it held that the power to regulate interstate commerce, granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, encompassed the power to regulate navigation. This opened the way for the federal government to regulate interstate trade.
Facts of Gibbons v. Ogden
A New York state law gave Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton a 20-year monopoly over navigation on waters within state jurisdiction. Aaron Ogden and other competitors tried to forestall the monopoly without success. Thomas Gibbons, a steamboat owner who did business between New York and New Jersey under a federal coastal license – formed a partnership with Ogden, which fell apart after three years when Gibbons operated another steamboat on a New York route belonging to Ogden. Ogden filed suit against Gibbons in New York state court, and received a permanent injunction. The New York state court rejected Gibbons’ argument asserting that U.S. Congress controlled interstate commerce.
In their review and conclusion, Justice Marshall with other Justices, stated that only Congress had the power to regulate navigation by steamboat operators and others who were conducting interstate commerce in accordance with the Commerce Clause. The law by New York state was therefore declared invalid.
