McCulloch v. Maryland (Supreme Court Case Study Notes)
Background and Facts of McCulloch v. Maryland
In , Congress chartered the Second Bank of the United States.
The institution, as indicated by its title, functioned as a federal bank under the authority of the central government.
The federal bank sought to expand its operations by establishing various branches across several states, including a specific branch in Baltimore, Maryland.
The Maryland state legislature opposed the presence of the federal bank branch within its borders.
To push back against the federal institution, the Maryland state legislature passed a law stating that any bank operating in Maryland that was not officially chartered by the state of Maryland would be forced to pay a tax.
The specific tax amount mandated by the Maryland law was per year.
When adjusted for inflation, the tax amount represents a substantial sum of money, described colloquially by the speaker as a "metric buttload."
The cashier of the Baltimore branch of the national bank, James W. McCulloch, recognized the tax as an injustice and refused to pay it.
Due to this refusal, the dispute escalated through the legal system, eventually reaching the Supreme Court of the United States.
Constitutional Principles and Arguments
Maryland's legal team argued that the establishment of a national bank was unconstitutional. Their primary reasoning was based on a literal reading of the Constitution: nowhere in Article , Section is it explicitly stated that Congress has the power to create a bank.
McCulloch’s legal team countered this by arguing that the bank was indeed constitutional based on the Necessary and Proper Clause, which is explicitly stated in Article , Section .
The verbatim text of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article , Section ) is: "The congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the united states or in any department or officer thereof."
The speaker explains that Congress possesses explicit powers under Article , Section , such as the power to declare war or the power to regulate interstate commerce.
The Necessary and Proper Clause functions as a grant of power allowing Congress to create laws not explicitly named in the Article as long as they are required to uphold and execute the explicit powers.
These non-explicit powers are technically referred to as implied powers; while they are not named directly, they are implied by the necessity of carrying out named duties.
The Supreme Court’s Unanimous Decision
The Supreme Court's decision was unanimous in favor of McCulloch.
Chief Justice John Marshall authored the opinion, asserting that the national bank was constitutional due to the authority granted by the Necessary and Proper Clause.
Marshall defined the sound construction of the Constitution in his decision: "We think that the sound construction of the constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people."
Marshall established a standard for checking the constitutionality of a law: "Let the end be legitimate let it be within the scope of the constitution and all means which are appropriate which are plainly adapted to that end which are not prohibited but consist with the letter in the spirit of the constitution are constitutional."
This rationale indicates that if a federal power is not specifically prohibited and the law in question serves the spirit of the Constitution, that law is valid and constitutional.
The Establishment of National Supremacy
Beyond the bank itself, the case established the legal principle of the supremacy of national/federal laws over state laws.
John Marshall articulated the relationship between the people, the states, and the federal government: "The powers granted to congress are not given by the people of a single state they are given by the people of the united states to a government whose laws made in pursuance of the constitution are declared to be supreme consequently the people of a single state cannot confer sovereignty which will extend over them."
The core takeaway of this supremacy principle is that whenever a state law is in direct conflict with a federal law, the federal law prevails.
Significance for Federalism and Long-term Impact
The case is a landmark decision because of its implications for federalism, which is defined as the balance of power between the federal government and the state governments.
The speaker compares this case to United States v. Lopez, noting that while the Lopez case tipped the balance of power toward the states, McCulloch v. Maryland decidedly tipped the balance in favor of the federal government.
McCulloch v. Maryland serves as a foundational precedent that later courts would return to repeatedly when deciding cases involving the distribution and balance of power between the states and the federal government.
In 1816, Congress chartered the Second Bank of the United States, which operated as a federal bank. To counteract this, the Maryland state legislature imposed a tax on any bank not chartered within the state, specifically targeting the Baltimore branch of the national bank. James W. McCulloch, the cashier of this branch, refused to pay the tax, leading to a legal dispute that reached the Supreme Court. The case raised significant constitutional questions regarding the authority of Congress to create a bank and the relationship between federal and state powers. The Supreme Court ultimately decided unanimously in favor of McCulloch, establishing the constitutionality of the national bank and asserting the supremacy of federal laws over state laws.