Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the power to regulate interstate commerce, which is granted to the US Congress by the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, encompasses the power to regulate navigation.
On March 2, 1824, the Supreme Court ruled in Gibbons v. Ogden, holding that Congress may regulate interstate commerce.
In Gibbons, the Court struck down New York State's attempt to grant a steamboat monopoly to Robert Fulton, which he had then ultimately franchised to Ogden, who claimed river traffic was not "commerce" under the Commerce Clause and that Congress could not interfere with New York State's grant of an exclusive monopoly within its own borders. [14]
Chief Justice John Marshall first envisioned the dormant commerce clause doctrine in his 1824 opinion in Gibbons v.Ogden. The idea that regulation of interstate commerce may to some extent be an exclusive Federal power was discussed even before adoption of the Constitution.
Johnson v. McIntosh (1823): In an opinion written by Chief Justice Marshall, the court held that private parties could not validly purchase land from Native Americans. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824): In an opinion written by Chief Justice Marshall, the court struck down a New York law that had granted a monopoly on steamship operation in the state of ...
Gibbons continued to operate steamboats in New York after receiving a federal license to operate steamboats in the waters of any state. In response, Ogden won a judgment in state court that ordered Gibbons to cease operations in the state. Gibbons appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard the case of Gibbons v. Ogden in 1824.
Gibbons v. Ogden: 22 U.S. 1 (1824) Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce Osborn v. Bank of the United States: 22 U.S. 738 (1824) scope of Article III jurisdiction; interpretation of the 11th Amendment: The Antelope: 23 U.S. 66 (1825) The Supreme Court's initial consideration of the legitimacy of the international slave trade ...
It ruled that the Necessary and Proper Clause grants implied powers and that the states cannot pass laws that interfere with federal programs in McCulloch v. Maryland, it extended this ruling to criminal charges in Cohens v. Virginia, and it ruled that states cannot regulate interstate commerce due to the Commerce Clause in Gibbons v. Ogden ...