Case
Thomas Gibbons, Appellant v. Aaron Ogden, Respondent (1824)
Chief Justice
John Marshall
Background
Aaron Ogden had a license to operate a monopolistic steamboat service granted by the State of New York. Thomas Gibbons operated a competing steamboat service on interstate waterways adjacent to the state of New York. Ogden took him to court in the state of New York to prevent him from operating his business, and two levels of New York court agreed with him.
Synopsis
The Supreme Court agreed with Gibbons' lawyers argument that that the Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution (the Commerce Clause) gave Congress the right to regulate commerce extended to "all aspects of it, overriding state laws to the contrary." (from wikipedia)
Vote & Dissenting Opinions
6-0 (with 1 abstaining)
Further Discussion
This case seems pretty straightforward and simple, really. It is an important case, but at least on first glance, appears to be an easy decision. Here's Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 & 3 of the Constitution:
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
References & Further Reading
http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html
Posts
So the Supreme Court over-ruled the state courts' decisions and denied the monopoly?
ReplyDeleteCorrect, for the most part. The New York courts were saying that the monopoly applied to any commerce done on the waterways between New York and New Jersey, which I think Gibbons was doing (technically operating in both NY & NJ). The Supreme Court's statement was essentially that allowing different rules from state to state would enable contradictions and slow trade. If New Jersey had the same law, that would have effectively killed interstate commerce (and competition) between the two states. Technically I don't think they could say anything about the monopoly within the state of New York, instead they could only regulate interstate commerce. So Ogden probably maintained the monopoly on NY waterways.
ReplyDelete