Marbury v.

Madison
1803 1810 1819 1819
1821 1824 1832
Fletcher v. peck
Dartmouth v. Woodward
McCulloch v. Maryland
Cohens v. Virginia
Gibbons v. Ogden
Worchester v. Georgia

Marshall Court Flipbook

By: Rebekah Eicke and Caitlin Grapentine
Cause: William Marbury had been appointed a justice of the peace for the District of
Columbia during the final hours of the Adams administration. When James Madison,
Jeffersons Secretary of State, refused to deliver Marburys commission, Marbury and
three others petitioned for a writ of mandamus that compelled for the delivery of
commissions. A writ of mandamus is a court order to an inferior government official to
start properly fulfilling their duties.
Importance: This was the first Supreme Court Case to apply the principle of judicial
review- which is the power of federal courts to void acts of Congress that are in conflict
with the Constitution.
Ruling: Marshall denied the petition and refused to issue the writ. He found that
petitioners were entitled to their commissions, he held that the Constitution did not
give the Supreme Court the power to issue these writs.

Cause: In 1795, the Georgia state legislature passed a land grant. However, in
1796, Georgia voided the law and declared all rights and claims under it to be
invalid. In 1800, John Peck acquired land that was under the original land
grant. He sold the land to Robert Fletcher in 1799, claiming that past sales of
the land were legitimate. Fletcher argued that since the original sale of the
land had been declared invalid, Peck had no legal right to sell the land.

Importance: This was the first supreme court case in which the supreme court
ruled a state law unconstitutional, and created a growing precedent for the
sanctity of legal contracts as well as hinted that Native Americans did not
hold title to their own lands.

Ruling: In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that since the estate had been
legally "passed into the hands of a purchaser for a valuable consideration,"
the Georgia legislature could not take away the land or invalidate the
contract.

Cause: In 1816, New Hampshire legislation attempted to change Dartmouth college

for a private institution (which was a grant signed by King George III of England in
1769) into a state university. The legislature also changed the schools original
charter by transferring the power to appoint the board of trustees to the governor.
In attempt to regain power over Dartmouth College, the old board of trustees filed
suit against Woodward, who sided with the new members of the board of trustees.
Importance: This case established that contracts cannot be impaired or changed by
the state legislature, even if they were bound/created illegally.
Ruling: In a 6-to-1 decision, the Court held that the College's corporate charter
qualified as a contract between private parties, with which the legislature could
not interfere. The fact that the government had commissioned the charter did not
transform the school into a civil institution. Marshall emphasized that a contract
referred to a transaction involving individual property rights, not between the
government and its respective citizens.

Cause: In 1816, the US Congress chartered the Second Bank of the United States. Two years
later in 1818, the Maryland legislation issued a law allowing them to impose taxes on the bank.
McCulloch, the main cashier of the Baltimore region of the bank refused to pay the tax.

Importance: This case established that the government of individual states cannot impose laws
on the functioning of the federal government.

Ruling: In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Congress had the power to incorporate the
bank and that Maryland could not tax parts working for the national government employed in
the execution of constitutional powers. It also established that federal laws are more supreme
than state laws, and states cannot be controlled by them, through state legislation, only
federal legislation.

Cause: A Congressional Act allowed the operation of a lottery

located in the District of Columbia. The Cohen brothers sold DC
lottery tickets in the state of Virginia, thus violating Virginia
State Law. State authorities tried and convicted them, and then
Virginia declared themselves to be the final verdict in the ruling
when dealing with disputes between state and federal cases.

Importance: This case showed how the Supreme Court has the power
to review state court cases if necessary

Ruling: In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the jurisdiction

to review state criminal proceedings. Marshall said that the Court
was bound to hear all cases that involved constitutional questions,
and that this jurisdiction was not dependent on the identity of the
parties in the cases. Marshall argued that state laws and
constitutions, when repugnant to the Constitution and federal laws,
were "absolutely void." After establishing the Court's jurisdiction,
Marshall declared the lottery ordinance a local matter and
concluded that the Virginia court was correct to fine the Cohens
brothers for violating Virginia law.
Cause: A NY state law gave individuals exclusive right to operate steamboats
on waters within the state bounds. Laws similar to this law passed were
duplicated in other places, and led to friction as some states would require
foreign boats to pay substantial fees for navigational privileges. Thomas
Gibbons, a steamboat owner who operated in NY and NJ under a federal license,
challenged the monopoly license granted by the state of NY to Aaron Ogden. NY
courts upheld the state monopoly consistently.

Importance: This case established that the federal government has exclusive
power over issues dealing with interstate commerce.

Ruling: The unanimous Court found that NYs licensing requirement for out-of-
state operators was inconsistent with a congressional act regulating the
coasting trade. The NY law was invalid by virtue of the Supremacy Clause.
Marshall defined commerce, which included navigation on interstate waterways.
He also gave meaning to the phrase "among the several states" in the Commerce
Clause. He concluded that regulation of navigation by steamboat operators and
others for purposes of conducting interstate commerce was a power reserved to
and exercised by the Congress.

Cause: Samuel A. Worcester, a non-Native American, was indicted in the supreme court for the of
Georgia for "residing within the limits of the Cherokee nation without a license" and "without having
taken the oath to support and defend the constitution and laws of the state of Georgia." He was
indicted under an 1830 act of the Georgia legislature entitled "an act to prevent the exercise of
assumed and arbitrary power by all persons, under pretext of authority from the Cherokee Indians."
Worcester argued that the state could not maintain the prosecution because the statute violated the
Constitution, treaties between the United States and the Cherokee nation, and an act of Congress
entitled "an act to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes." Worcester was convicted
and sentenced to "hard labor for four years."

Importance: This case found that the Georgia legislature lacked the authority to regulate the
intercourse between citizens of the state and members of Native American territories.

Ruling: In an opinion delivered Marshall, the Court held that the Georgia act, under which
Worcester was prosecuted, violated the Constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States. Noting
that the "treaties and laws of the United States contemplate the Indian territory as completely
separated from that of the states; and provide that all intercourse with them shall be carried on
exclusively by the government of the union," He also argued that, "the Cherokee nation, then, is a
distinct community occupying its own territory in which the laws of Georgia can have no force. The
whole intercourse between the United States and this nation, is, by our constitution and laws, vested
in the government of the United States." The Georgia act thus interfered with the federal government's
authority and was decided to be unconstitutional.
 To what extent did the Supreme Court under John Marshall act as a force for nationalism
during this time period?

John Marshall showed a strong sense of American nationalism during this time
period through his strong commitment to judicial power and by a strong belief in that
national judicial power has supremacy over state legislature. This is primarily shown in the
cases of Marbury v. Madison and Gibbons v. Ogden. John Marshall often quoted individual
clauses when delivering the court verdict, and was a strong believer in a strict interpretation
of the Constitution and has clauses amended several times to prevent court cases from
recurring themes to happen again. He often asserted that federal power is more supreme
than state legislation, especially in the case of Fletcher v. Peck, when he declared a state
law unconstitutional, as well as in Cohen v. Virginia with the upholding of the Courts ability
to review state criminal cases. Overall, Chief Justice John Marshall led to many of the
trends seen in the Supreme Court and the United States judicial system today.