Case Overviews
These cases (controversial at the time) have established Constitutional interpretations that are fundamental to how government functions today.
McCulloch v Maryland
Gibbons v Ogden
US v Lopez
Marbury v Madison
US v Nixon
Baker v Carr
- In 1818, Maryland passed a statute that put a tax on all banks in Maryland not chartered by the state, also prohibited those banks from issuing bank notes unless they were printed on stamped state issued paper that costed money
- McCulloch was a cashier at the Baltimore branch of The Bank of the United States and issued bank notes without complying with the law
- Question posed: Does Congress have the power to incorporate a bank, even though it's not specifically stated in the Constitution?
- Question posed: Does Maryland have the power to tax an institution created by Congress under the Constitution?
- Yes, Congress has power to incorporate a bank (Necessary and Proper clause, Article 1 section 8)
- No, Maryland can’t tax an institution created by Congress
- Laws created by Congress are the supreme law of the land and supreme in sphere of action as long as they abide by the Constitution
- The Bank of the United States can establish branches in any state, the state can’t tax or control the us government
Gibbons v Ogden
- State of New York gave a monopoly on steamship travel in New York and certain ports in NJ to investors like Aaron Ogden
- Thomas Gibbons wanted to use NY waters and had federal permission to but NY didn’t let him
- Question posed: Can a state regulate an internal affair regarding trade or interstate commerce, even though it is inconsistent with federal law?
- Question posed: Can a state grant an exclusive right to using state waterways inconsistent with federal law?
- No, states don’t have legislation over the federal government
- Congress’ acts are supreme so state laws must yield to that
- The power to regulate commerce is general and exclusive to Congress, states can’t change it at all (doesn’t apply to commerce that is strictly within the state)
US v Lopez
- Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 outlawed having guns in a school zone
- Alfonzo Lopez Jr had a gun and was charged under Texas law, but then state charges were dropped because he was charged under federal law
- Question posed: Does the GFSZA exceed Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause?
- Question posed: What kinds of activity can Congress regulate under its commerce power?
- Supreme Court found that Congress had exceeded its power with the GFSZA
- Government argued that the GFSZA came from the commerce clause, but court said that it had nothing to do with commerce
- Decided use of interstate commerce channels, regulation of interstate commerce, and things that substantially affect interstate commerce were the only things congress could regulate under the commerce power
Marbury v Madison
- President John Adams signed commissions for court justices (he wanted to get as many federalist judges in the judiciary as he could because Jefferson was anti-federalist) on his last day in office but they weren’t delivered before Thomas Jefferson got into office
- Jefferson refused to honor these commissions
- Marbury was going to be one of the recipients of the commissions and appealed to the supreme court to get jefferson’s secretary of state James Madison to deliver commissions
- Court found Marbury has the right to his commission
- Supreme Court has the power to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are constitutional
- Congress can’t expand the powers of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction more than what is allowed in the Constitution article 3
US v Nixon
- Nixon and 7 aids were charged in the Watergate Scandal
- Prosecutors requested audio tapes of Nixon in the oval office
- Nixon refused, saying executive privilege let him withhold information from other branches to preserve confidential executive communications to secure national interest
- Question posed: Can the President use his "executive privilege" to safeguard certain information and be entirely immune from judicial review?
- No, neither seperation of power nor confidentiality gives Nixon presidential privilege
- Executive privilege is only in areas on military or diplomatic affairs
Baker v Carr
- Charles Baker filed a suit against Joe Carr (secretary of state of Tennessee)
- Baker said that the legislative districts in TN hadn’t been redrawn since 1901, which violated the constitution saying that they had to be redrawn every 10 years (census)
- There was a greater population in cities where he lived, so it diluted his vote
- The district court refused to hear his case because it was a political question
- Question posed: Can federal courts hear constitutional challenges to legislative apportionment?
- Yes, federal courts can hear challenges to legislative apportionment
Review the importance of each case
Test your knowledge
Powered by Interact