Name of Case: Dartmouth College v.

Woodward

Year of Decision: 1819

Background of Case:
• Dartmouth College was a private institute with a charter that allowed it to practice privately
• New Hampshire's Republican state government wished to alter the Dartmouth charter in order
to make it a public institute (state university).
• Daniel Webster, who represented Dartmouth College in the case, argued that the charter was a
legal contract that was protected by the Constitution

Parts of Constitution in Question:

• Article I Section 10
◦ This part of the Constitution states that “no state shall pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post
facto Law, or Law impairing the obligation of contracts.”

Court's Decision and Reasoning for decision:

• The Court ruled in favor of Dartmouth College
◦ the reasoning being that the Dartmouth charter was a valid contract that was protected from
interference by the state government by section ten of article one of the Constitution
Name of Case: Cohens v. Virginia

Year of Decision: 1821

Background of Case:
• The Cohen brothers were charged by the state of Virginia for the crime of selling District of
Columbia lottery tickets in Virginia. Selling lottery tickets was against Virginia state law but
was not outlawed in D.C. by the federal government. Thus the Cohens argued that the federal
was supreme to the state of Virginia law.
• However, the state of Virginia argued that the Supreme Court had no right to review a Virginia
criminal case without the consent of the state of Virginia.

Parts of Constitution in Question:

• Article III Section 2
◦ gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction over the “all cases, in law and equity, arising under
this Constitution, the laws of the United States. And treaties made, or which shall be made,
under their authority.”
▪ this gives the Federal court the right to review and make decisions on all such cases as
described above

Court's Decision and Reasoning for decision:

• The Court ruled in favor of Virginia
◦ The Opinion of the Court, written by Chief Justice Marshal, states that the Court ruled in
favor of Virginia because the federal act as passed by Congress only authorized the selling
of lottery tickets in the District of Columbia. The document makes it clear, however, that
under the second section of the third article of the Constitution, the court of the Union had
jurisdiction to review decisions of state courts.
Name of Case: McCulloch v. Maryland

Year of Decision: 1819

Background of Case:
• The state of Maryland, who apposed the Second Bank of the United States, imposed a tax
against all banks not chartered by the state in protest of the B.U.S. James W. McCulloch, the
cashier of the Maryland branch of the B.U.S, refused to pay the tax. In response, Maryland sued
the bank for the payment of the tax.
• The state of Maryland argued that Congress did not have the power to establish the bank in the
first place, while McCulloch argued that Maryland, as a state, did not have the power to
interfere with federal laws.

Parts of Constitution in Question:

• Article I Section 8
◦ This part of the Constitution states the powers of Congress, which were in question in this
case.

Court's Decision and Reasoning for decision:

• The Court ruled in favor of McCulloch
◦ It was stated in the Opinion of the Court that Congress had the power (implied by the clause
“to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper...”) to establish the Bank of the
United States and that the state of Maryland did not have the right to tax any institution
chartered by Congress. Thus ruling that Maryland could not collect the tax from the
Maryland branch of the B.U.S., because the tax was unconstitutional.
Name of Case: Gibbons v. Ogden

Year of Decision: 1824

Background of Case:
• The state of New York had granted the exclusive right to transport passengers on the Hudson
River to a steamboat company owned by Fulton and Livingston. They in turn gave Ogden the
business of transporting passengers between New York and New Jersey.
• Gibbons, however, had been granted granted a license by Congress and began competing with
Ogden.
• Ogden sued Gibbons stating that he had been given the exclusive right to transport passengers
between New York and New Jersey and Gibbons was infringing of that right. Ogden won the
case in the court of New York, but Gibbons appealed to the Supreme Court.
◦ The major dilemma was whether Congress had the right to grant Gibbons the license
overriding the rights given to Ogden by the state of New York

Parts of Constitution in Question:

• Article I, Section 8 & Article I, Section 9
◦ Again, section eight of the first article of the U.S. Constitution lists the powers of Congress
which were in question in this case.
◦ The ninth section of the first article, as mentioned by Chief Justice Marshall in the Opinion
of the Court, states that "no preference shall be given, by any regulation of commerce or
revenue, to the ports of one State over those of another."

Court's Decision and Reasoning for decision:

• The Court ruled in favor of Gibbons
◦ Chief Justice Marshall stated that Congress reserved the right to regulate interstate
commerce and could exercise the right to its full extent.
◦ Marshall also listed the clause he quoted in the opinion of the court from the 9 th section of
the first article of the Constitution as a reason for revoking Ogden's state issued monopoly.
Name of Case: Marbury v. Madison

Year of Decision: 1803

Background of Case:
• Adams before leaving office made “midnight appointments” to a new federal court, one of
whom was Marbury. Adams However, Madison, the Secretary of State who was to deliver the
commissions, did not due so. He refused to do so under the orders of Jefferson.
• Marbury sued Madison to hand over the commission. He claimed that his constitutional rights
were violated

Parts of Constitution in Question:

• Judiciary Act of 1798

Court's Decision and Reasoning for decision:

• The Court ruled in favor of Marbury
◦ Marbury's rights were violated because Adams had the power to appoint Marbury and
Marbury should have received his commission. However, the Court reserved the right to
find Jefferson guilty of breaking the law, but to refrain from fix the problem
◦ The ruling also found the Judiciary Act of 1798 unconstitutional. This is why the Court did
not force Jefferson and his administration to right the wrong.