Political Sciene - Scotus Cases

The issue in the case Marbury v. Madison (1803) was whether or not the Supreme Court of the United States had the power, under Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution, to interpret the constitutionality of a law or statue passed by Congress. This matter was brought forth to SCOTUS as a result of Thomas Jefferson's instructions to the Secretary of State, James Madison, not to appoint William Marbury as federal justice of peace. Marbury sued Madison to get the appointment he thought he deserved by asking the court to issue a writ of mandamus, which would require Madison to deliver the appointment.

The court then decided that Marbury's request for the writ of mandamus was based on a law passed by Congress (Judiciary Act) that the court held to be unconstitutional. The federal law contradicted the Constitution, and since the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, it must reign supreme. Through the decision of the court, Chief Justice John Marshall established the power of judicial review: the court's power to not only interpret the constitutionality of a law or statue but also carry out the process and enforce the decision. Since the case in 1803, our Nation has recognized the two chief principles of this case: that when there is a conflict between the Constitution and a federal or state law, the Constitution is supreme, and that it is the job of the court to interpret the laws of the United States.

In another landmark case, Maryland v. McCulloch (1819), Chief Justice John Marshall had to decide whether the state of Maryland had the right to tax a federal agency which was properly set up by the United States Congress. The State of Maryland brought action forth against William McCulloch, as cashier in the Maryland branch of the Bank of the United States, for not paying a tax the state had imposed on the United States Bank. The SCOTUS ruled that federal government's bank was immune to taxation and that 'the power to tax involves the power to destroy'. The Court reasoned that Congress could set up a United States Bank and write laws 'necessary and proper' to carry out its constitutional power to coin and regulate money. The court's broad interpretation of the necessary and proper clause paved the way for later rulings upholding expansive federal powers.

In the case Gibbons v. Ogden of (1824) the court had to decide whether the New York statue that prohibited vessel licensed by the United States from navigating the waters of New York was unconstitutional and therefore void. The New York State Legislature approved Robert Livingston a 20 year grant to navigate the rivers and other waters of the state as well as provided that no one should be allowed to navigate the waters of the state without the license from Livingston and his partner. Gibbons was originally Ogden's partner when they both acquired a license from Livingston, but then became rivals. Ogden had petitioned to the court and obtained an injunction to order Gibbons to stop operating his boats in New York waters even thought he had a authority to under a license obtained by the United States.

Chief Justice John Marshall then decided that the injunction was invalid against Gibbons because the monopoly granted by the New York statue conflicted with federal law. The Court then used this case to put forth the position that Congress can legislate and regulate all matters of interstate commerce as long as there is some commercial connection with another state. Even though interstate commerce is regulated by Congress, power to regulate "completely internal" commerce is reserved to the states.

In the Dred Scott v. Sanford