What impact did the Supreme Courts ruling in Gibbons v. Ogden have on the federal government?

Table of Contents Show

The decision was significant because it further established the power of the federal government over the states. It also spurred the national economy by ensuring that Congress had broad Commerce Clause powers and by eliminating certain state-centered monopolies that negatively impacted interstate commerce.

In order to continue enjoying our site, we ask that you confirm your identity as a human. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

This month we spotlight one of the earliest cases exploring the division between state and federal power: Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). In this Commerce Clause case, the Supreme Court affirmed Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, and held that by virtue of the Supremacy Clause, state laws “must yield” to constitutional acts of Congress.

Resources

Summary

On one side of the river was New York: on the other, New Jersey. Aaron Ogden stood on the New York side and smiled. Ogden had a license from New York to operate on the state’s waterways. Since New York required all out-of-state operators to get expensive permits (protecting Ogden from competition), Ogden figured he would be doing good business. But Gibbons, Ogden’s former business partner, was also a steamboat operator. And Gibbons had a license from the federal government to operate a steamboat through interstate waterways. Ogden and Gibbons each thought his own license should outweigh the other man’s. The case went to the Supreme Court.

The Court had to decide-who had the power to regulate navigation on interstate waterways: Congress, or the individual states? The Court ruled in Gibbons’s favor, holding that the Constitution gave this power to Congress. The opinion, written by Chief Justice John Marshall, focused on the meaning of the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which states that Congress has the power “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States…” The word “among,” the Court ruled, “may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more States than one.”

The Court acknowledged that the Constitution did not expressly grant Congress the power to regulate navigation on interstate waterways. But Marshall pointed out that all the states were connected by waterways and commerce would be impossible without navigating them. Therefore, the power to regulate transporting goods on waterways was “necessary and proper” for Congress to carry out its enumerated power to “regulate commerce…among the several states.”

If individual states had their own rules about commerce with other states, trade would be next to impossible. In fact, one important purpose of replacing the Articles of Confederation had been to “rescue [the United States] from the embarrassing and destructive consequences, resulting from the legislation of so many different States, and to place it under the protection of a uniform law.” States could not set their own rules for commerce in ways would interfere with the national government’s ability to carry out its power to establish uniform rules.

Finally, the decision affirmed that state laws that contradict constitutional acts of Congress “must yield” to the supremacy of the Constitution, as stated in Article VI: “This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme law of the land.”

Questions

What was the constitutional question in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)?
How did the Court rule?
List some ways this ruling affected your life. For example, do you ever buy things that were made in other states? If you had a successful invention and wanted to sell it around the country, would you face different sets of trade requirements in each state?
The Court held that “the word used in the Constitution [“commerce”]… 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”? Do you agree with the Court on the meaning of this particular word? Why or why not? What are the advantages of interpreting the Constitution this way? What are the dangers?
The Supremacy Clause (Article VI) of the Constitution states, “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” Does this clause mean that a state law that contradicts any act of Congress is void? How do you know?
Chief Justice Marshall wrote, “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.” How would you put this in your own words? Does this idea reflect the way the Constitution is taught today? Why or why not?

Since the Court's ruling Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the Commerce Clause has provided the basis for sweeping congressional power over a multitude of national issues. Above, a 19th century rendition of the Port of New York.

Reproduction courtesy of the Library of Congress

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) vastly expanded the powers of Congress through a single clause in the Constitution: the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8. The Court ruled that under that clause Congress had powers to regulate any aspect of commerce that crossed state lines, including modes of transportation, and that such regulation preempted conflicting regulation by the states. Since Gibbons, the Commerce Clause has provided the basis for sweeping congressional power over a multitude of national issues.

The dispute in Gibbons concerned competing claims of rival steamship franchises. The state of New York gave Aaron Ogden an exclusive license to operate steamboat ferries between New Jersey and New York City on the Hudson River. Thomas Gibbons, another steamboat operator, ran two ferries along the same route. Ogden sought an injunction against Gibbons in a New York state court, claiming that the state had given him exclusive rights to operate the route. In response, Gibbons claimed he had the right to operate on the route pursuant to a 1793 act of Congress regulating coastal commerce. The New York court found for Ogden and ordered Gibbons to cease operating his steamships; on appeal, the New York Supreme Court affirmed the order. Gibbons appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1824.

Chief Justice John Marshall ruled for Gibbons, holding that New York's exclusive grant to Ogden violated the federal licensing act of 1793. In reaching its decision, the Court interpreted the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution for the first time. The clause reads that "Congress shall have power to regulate commerce ... among the several States." According to the Court, the word "commerce" included not just articles in interstate trade but also the "intercourse" among the states, including navigation.

Next, the Court examined the clause's phrase "commerce among the several States," concluding that the word "among" means "intermingled with." Accordingly, Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce does not "stop at the external boundary line of each State, but may be introduced into the interior." In other words, Congress may pass any law that regulates commerce, so long as that commerce is not wholly confined within a single state, and its power to regulate such commerce is plenary. Under this interpretation of the Commerce Clause, Congress' clearly had the authority to regulate the commercial steamboat route between New York and New Jersey. It was assumed that the licensing act of 1793 did this and that the New York law in question was in conflict with it. Thus, the New York law was unconstitutional and New York's injunction against Gibbons was overturned. Gibbons was free to operate his steamships.

Gibbons v. Ogden set the stage for future expansion of congressional power over commercial activity and a vast range of other activities once thought to come within the jurisdiction of the states. After Gibbons, Congress had preemptive authority over the states to regulate any aspect of commerce crossing state lines. Thus, any state law regulating in-state commercial activities (e.g., workers' minimum wages in an in-state factory) could potentially be overturned by Congress if that activity was somehow connected to interstate commerce (e.g., that factory's goods were sold across state lines). Indeed, more than any other case, Ogden set the stage for the federal government's overwhelming growth in power into the 20th century.


	AUTHOR'S BIO

	Alex McBride is a third year law student at Tulane Law School in New Orleans. He is articles editor on the TULANE LAW REVIEW and the 2005 recipient of the Ray Forrester Award in Constitutional Law. In 2007, Alex will be clerking with Judge Susan Braden on the United States Court of Federal Claims in Washington.