Lara O’Donoghue 

January 20, 2022 

Case Brief #1 

Cooley v. Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia, 53 U.S. 299 (1852) 

Facts of the Case: In 1789, Congress established a statute to adopt State laws regarding pilotage
used in the assistance of ships through rivers and ports. In 1803, Pennsylvania required by law
that foreign or large coastal ships employ a local pilot for such assistance. Aaron Cooley did not
comply with this law in the case of two ships and, as such, the Board of Wardens of the Port of
Philadelphia went to State Court to collect pilot fees from Cooley. The State Court found in
favor of the Board of Wardens. Cooley appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court,
arguing that this State law was either (a) unconstitutional regulation of interstate commerce or
(b) a violation of the 1789 federal statute. 

Legal Question(s) Presented: Does the 1803 Pennsylvania State law requiring that local pilots
be used in the assistance of ships through rivers and ports violate the 1789 Federal statute, and is
its implementation unconstitutional? Can the States regulate interstate commerce when local in
nature, undemanding one national system by Congress; can states require ships to hire local
pilots or does this violate the dormant commerce clause?

Holding: No, the 1803 Pennsylvania State law is not unconstitutional, nor does it violate the
1789 Federal statute. There exists a distinction between national and local regulations of
commerce. Yes, States may regulate interstate commerce in areas which are local by nature, they
can require ships to hire local pilots, and this does not violate the dormant commerce clause.

Opinion for the Court: Writing for the majority, Justice Benjamin Curtis, affirmed by Taney,
Catron, Nelson, Grier, and Daniel, distinguished between national regulation and state regulation
of interstate commerce, concluding that there exist circumstances that require local knowledge
and experience. The Congressional Statute of 1789 maintained that states can enact regulations
that affect interstate commerce; though the Federal Government retains exclusive power over
commercial matters of national importance, States maintain concurrent power to regulate local
aspects in the absence of Federal law. In this case, the requirement of the employment of local
pilots in the State of Pennsylvania was local in nature and did not require one uniform rule. The
U.S. Supreme Court found in favor of the State of Pennsylvania. 

Separate Opinion(s): Justice McLean dissents, arguing that the power to regulate pilots falls
under the commercial power of Congress and thus the 1803 Pennsylvania law does not stand up,
as Congress retains authority over such matters. 

Comments and Evaluation: Cooley v. Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia set
precedent for future approaches to commerce disputes in the case of the Dormant Commerce
Clause, or Negative Relations of Commerce, by implementing the distinction made here between
“national in nature” and “local in nature”.