John Marshall Cases

John Marshall “The man who made the court supreme” Bio:

● Born in Virginia, 1755

● Served as an officer with General Washington during the Revolution

● Attended College of William and Mary and became a practicing attorney

● 2nd cousin of Thomas Jefferson

One Federalist official continued to have major influence throughout the years of Democratic- Republican ascendancy: John Marshall. He had been appointed to the Supreme Court in 1800 by Federalist President John Adams and was still leading the Court as its Chief Justice. His decisions consistently favored the central government and the rights of property against the advocates of states’ rights. Even when justices appointed by Democratic-Republican presidents formed a majority on the Court, they often sided with Marshall because they were persuaded that the U.S. Constitution had created a federal government with strong and flexible powers. Several of Marshall’s decisions became landmark rulings that defined the relationship between the central government and the states. The first of these cases, Marbury v. Madison (1803), established the principle of judicial review. Seven other influential cases are described below.

Fletcher v. Peck (1810) (protection of property rights against popular pressures)

Synopsis: In a case involving land fraud in Georgia, Marshall concluded that a state could not pass legislation invalidating a contract. This was the first time the Supreme Court declared a state law to be unconstitutional and invalid. (In Marbury v. Madison, the Court ruled a federal law unconstitutional).

1. What was the Case/Issue?: The Georgia Legislature took bribes from a group of land speculators in exchange for a bunch of land in what would later become Mississippi. The people of the state voted in a new legislature who passed a law invalidating the corrupt sale.

2. Decision: Supreme Court concluded a state could not pass legislation invalidating a contract, thus protecting property rights against popular pressures. States can’t legislate their way out of a contract

3. Significance: Court ruled Constitution forbids a State from “impairing contracts”

a. One of earliest examples of the Court asserting its right to invalidate state laws. b. Court stated the legislative grant was a contract (albeit fraudulently secured).

Martin v. Hunter’s Lease (1816) (protects property rights)

Synopsis: Colonies confiscated land from citizens who had been loyalists during the war. The Treaty of Paris 1783 that ended the Revolutionary War said all loyalist property had to be returned. The state of Virginia Supreme Court said that the property didn’t have to be returned.

1. What was the Case/Issue?: Did the Supreme Court (as stated in Judiciary Act of 1789) have the right to review decisions of state supreme courts where federal statutes or treaties were involved or when state laws had been upheld under the federal Constitution?

● The Virginia Supreme Court sought to disregard the Treaty of Paris (1783) and Jay’s Treaty (1794) regarding confiscation of Loyalist lands.

2. Decision: Supreme Court rejected “compact theory” that said the Constitution was a “compact” (or agreement) between states and the federal government, and were therefore equal. The Treaty of Paris was upheld and all loyalist land had to be returned.

3. Significance: Upheld Supremacy Clause of the Constitution

a. Reiterated Federal Law was sovereign over states

b. Upheld the Treaty of Paris

c. Further upheld the sanctity of contracts

Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) (protection of property rights from the States) Synopsis: This case involved a law of New Hampshire that changed Dartmouth College from a

privately chartered college into a public institution..

1. What was the Case/Issue?: New Hampshire had changed a charter granted to Dartmouth by the British king in 1769. Republicans sought to remove the “private” aspect of school & make it a state institution (change it from a private to public university)... Dartmouth appealed; defended by Daniel Webster, an alumnus.

2. Decision: Supreme Court struck down the state law as unconstitutional, arguing that a contract for a private corporation could not be altered by the state. Upheld the sanctity of contracts and private property.

3. Significance:

a. Positive: safeguarded business from domination by the states; assured economic development & encouraged investment in corporations. Further, set a precedent for the Supreme Court’s overturning acts of state legislatures and state courts.

b. Negative: set precedent giving corporations ability to escape gov’t control

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) (Federal government supremacy and National Bank is Constitutional)

Synopsis: Maryland attempted to tax the Second Bank of the United States located in Maryland. Marshall ruled that a state could not tax a federal institution because “the power to tax is the power to destroy,” and federal laws are supreme over state laws. In addition, Marshall settled the long-running debate over constitutionality of the national bank. Using a loose interpretation of the Constitution, Marshall ruled that, even though no clause in the Constitution specifically

mentions a national bank, the Constitution gave the federal government the implied power to create one.

1. What is the Issue?: Maryland tried to destroy its branch of the B.U.S. by taxing its currency (at the times different banks issued different money).

2. Decision: Marshall declared B.U.S. constitutional invoking Hamilton’s doctrine of implied powers (“elastic clause” of the constitution—“necessary & proper”).

a. “Loose Interpretation” of the Congress’s ability to “Coin Money”

b. Argued the Constitution derived from the consent of the people and thus permitted the gov’t to act for their benefit

3. Significance:

a. Denied Maryland the right to tax the bank: “the power to tax involves the power to

destroy” and “that a power to create implies the power to preserve.”

b. Restated the supremacy of the Federal government over states

Cohens v. Virginia (1821)

Synopsis: A pair of brothers named Cohens were convicted in Virginia of illegally selling lottery tickets for a lottery authorized by Congress for Washington, D.C. While Marshall and the Court upheld the conviction, they established the principle that the Supreme Court could review a state court’s decision involving any of the powers of the federal government.

1. What is the Issue?: Virginia courts convicted Cohens for selling Washington, D.C. lottery tickets without permission from the state of Virginia

2. Decision:

a. The Supreme Court upheld (kept) the decision. Essentially said that the state has a

right to authorize purchases and sales.

3. Significance: Supreme Court had the power to review decisions of the State supreme courts in issues involving powers of the federal gov’t

● Similar to Martin v. Hunter’s Lease case Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) (“steamboat case”)

Synopsis: Could the state of New York grant a monopoly to a steamboat company if that action conflicted with a charter authorized by Congress? In ruling that the New York monopoly was unconstitutional, Marshall established the federal government’s broad control of interstate commerce.

1. What is the Issue?: NY tried to grant a monopoly of river commerce between NY & NJ to a private company (owned by Ogden). Gibbons had congressional approval to conduct business on the same river.

2. Decision: Marshall ruled the NY monopoly was unconstitutional. Court ruled interstate rivers were to be regulated by Congress, not the individual states.

3. Significance: Only Congress had the right to regulate interstate commerce.

Worcester v Georgia (1832) (Trail of Tears case)

Synopsis: The state of Georgia passed a law that said non-natives were banned from entering Native territory to prevent mixing of the two “races”.

1. What is the Issue? A missionary promoting Christianity entered native territory to spread religion. As he gained converts he started to protect the native population and believed that the Georgia law was illegal because the natives (Cherokee) were a “separate nation” and not under

Georgia authority.

2. Decision: Marshall ruled that the Cherokee were a “Separate Nation” that could only be

negotiated with by the Federal government. Therefore Georgia could not pass laws that had any force of law over the Cherokee. Furthermore, since the Cherokee were a separate nation, the Federal government had to negotiate with them as opposed to passing laws over.

3. Significance:

a. Native tribes were a separate nation apart from the United States.

b. Native tribes had a right to their land and could not simply be “removed”

c. States had no right to pass law over native land

d. Jackson/Congress violated the case with the Indian Removal Act

Marshall’s Decisions

Judicial Authority

National Supremacy

Property Rights

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Martin v. Hunter’s Lease (1810) McCulloch v. Maryland

(1819)

Cohens v. Virginia (1821) Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

Fletcher v. Peck (1810) Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819)

Worcester v Georgia (1832)