The Marshall Court Chapter 8

John Marshall and Judicial Nationalism Marshall was the most important chief justice in U.S. history ( ) Significantly strengthened the Supreme Court His decisions greatly increased power of the federal gov’t over states – Strengthened the union and helped create a stable, nationally uniform environment for business – Checked power of the popularly elected state legislatures

John Marshall and Judicial Nationalism Examined cases from a Federalist philosophy and created legal precedents to support his Hamiltonian views – Jeffersonian attempts to balance the Court with Republicans failed – Republicans came to accept the Federalist ideal of strong central government Held a liberal view of elastic clause – The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.

Yazoo Land Frauds 35 million acres; $.015 per acre Georgia legislature bribed for the sale, and then voted out of office New Legislature declared sale (contract) invalid Peck received land during first sale in 1795 and sold to Fletcher before contract abrogated. Fletcher wanted his $ back

Fletcher v. Peck (1810) Significance: Court ruled the Constitution forbids state from "impairing contracts" – One of earliest examples of Court asserting its right to invalidate state laws – Court stated the legislative grant was a contract (albeit fraudulently secured)

Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) Issue: New Hampshire had changed a charter granted to the college by King George III in Republicans sought to remove "private" aspect of school & make a state institution – Dartmouth appealed; defended by Daniel Webster, an alumnus Ruling: Charter was a contract; states could not invalidate it according to Constitution Significance: – Safeguarded business from domination by the states – Set precedent giving corporations the ability to escape gov’t control Daniel Webster

Cohens v. Virginia (1821) Issue: Virginia courts convicted Cohens for selling D.C. lottery tickets in VA where it was illegal. – State supreme court upheld the decision – Marshall upheld the state court, BUT… Significance: Marshall asserted right of Supreme Court to review decisions of the state supreme constitutional questions. – Significant blow to states' rights.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) Issue: Maryland tried to destroy Baltimore branch of the BUS by taxing its notes (bills) Significance: Marshall declared US bank constitutional by invoking Hamilton's doctrine of implied powers - “necessary and proper” – "Loose construction" given major boost. – Argued the Constitution derived from the consent of the people and thus permitted the gov't to act for their benefit. Denied Maryland the right to tax the bank: "..that the power to tax involves the power to destroy" and "that a power to create implies the power to preserve."

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) 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 waters. Court ruled interstate streams were to regulated by Congress, not individual states. Significance: Marshall ruled Constitution conferred on Congress alone the right to control interstate commerce.

Johnson v. McIntosh (1823) Issue: Johnson purchased land from the Piankeshaw tribe in That same land was sold to McIntosh in 1818 by the federal gov’t. – Who’s title to the land was more valid? – What rights did tribes have? Significance: Marshall stated that only the federal gov’t could take, sell or give land to the Natives. Tribes were dependent on the Federal gov’t: as children to their parents – The Court acknowledged that this practice treated Native Americans "as an inferior race of people, without the privileges of citizens, and under the perpetual protection and pupilage of the government."

Worcester v Georgia (1832) Issue: Georgia law in 1831 required all whites travelling to Cherokee land to obtain a license from the state. – GA trying to pressure Cherokee to leave land. – Missionary Samuel Worcester refused – Sentenced to four years imprisonment Did the state have the right to pass laws affecting the Natives? Significance: Marshall ruled that since the Cherokee were under federal jurisdiction, GA had no power to pass law affecting the Cherokee – Again, Natives tribes viewed as “wards of the state”