McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

What happened in McCulloch v. Maryland?

The state of Maryland tried to tax the Second Bank of the United States. James McCulloch, a bank employee, refused to pay the tax, leading to a legal battle.

What historical context surrounded the case?

There was political controversy over whether the federal government had the authority to create a national bank and whether states had power over federal institutions. This was during a time of growing federal authority post-Constitution.

What constitutional provisions were at issue in McCulloch v. Maryland?

• Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18): Gives Congress the power to make laws that are necessary and proper for carrying out its enumerated powers (e.g., regulating commerce, collecting taxes).

• Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2): Establishes that the Constitution and federal laws made under it are the "supreme law of the land," overriding conflicting state laws.

What did the Supreme Court decide?

The Court ruled that:

1. Congress had the power to create a national bank under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

2. Maryland could not tax the federal bank because of the Supremacy Clause.

The decision was delivered by Chief Justice Marshall

What were the major takeaways from the ruling?

• The federal government has implied powers beyond those explicitly listed in the Constitution.

• States cannot interfere with or tax legitimate activities of the federal government.

How did Chief Justice John Marshall justify the ruling?

• He argued that the Constitution gives Congress implied powers to carry out its enumerated powers.

• A national bank is a legitimate means of executing those powers (e.g., taxing, borrowing, regulating commerce).

• “The power to tax involves the power to destroy”—so states cannot tax federal institutions.

Was there a dissent in McCulloch v. Maryland?

There was no formal dissent. The decision was unanimous, delivered by Chief Justice Marshall.

Were there any opposing arguments?

Though no dissent was issued by the Court, opponents (especially strict constructionists) argued that the Constitution did not explicitly authorize a national bank and that states should retain power over taxation within their borders.

What were the broader consequences of the decision?

• Strengthened federal power relative to the states.

• Confirmed the legitimacy of implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

• Limited state power to interfere with federal operations.

Why is McCulloch v. Maryland a landmark case?

• It established the idea that the federal government is supreme over the states when acting within its constitutional powers.

• It greatly expanded the scope of national government authority.

How did the ruling influence later cases?

It created a lasting precedent for interpreting federal powers broadly and limiting state interference, shaping future debates over the balance of power in American federalism.