Important Supreme Court decisions during the John Marshall years

Year

/

Case

/

Holding

/

Impact

1803 /

Marbury vs. Madison

/
  • Established the precedent of judicial review: the Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to determine the constitutionality of acts of government (including laws made by Congress.)
/
  • Gives the federal level of government more power in the federal system.
  • Elevates the power of the federal judiciary relative to the other two branches.

1810 /

Fletcher vs. Peck

/
  • Constitution forbids state laws from ‘impairing’ contracts (Ga legislature could not rescind land deals that previous legislature had made.)
/
  • Further bolstered federal power over states.

1819 /

Dartmouth College vs. Woodward

/
  • Constitution forbids state laws from impairing contracts (New Hampshire changed the charter of Dartmouth College – Court ruled that the charter was a contract, and state could not change it.)
/
  • Further bolstered federal power over states.

1819 /

McCulloch vs. Maryland

/
  • State may not hinder or impede the operation of the national government (Art VI, Sec 2, the Supremacy Clause).
  • Congress’ creation of national bank was ‘necessary and proper’ under the elastic clause, and thus constitutional.
/
  • Further bolstered federal power over states.
  • Expanded the use of the necessary and proper (elastic) clause (Art I, Sec 8, Clause 18)
  • Further promotes loose construction.

1821 /

Cohens vs. Virginia

/
  • The Supreme Court may review the Constitutionality of rulings of state high-courts. (Cohens had been convicted under Va law, which conviction was upheld by high-court of Va, and upheld by U.S. S. Ct.
/
  • Further bolstered federal power over states.
  • Made even state Supreme Court rulings subject to judicial review.

1824 /

Gibbons vs. Ogden

/
  • Federal government (Congress) has exclusive authority to regulate interstate commerce (Art I, Sec 8, Clause 3). (NY had granted an exclusive license to operate a ferry service on Hudson River, between NY and NJ – S.Ct. said that was regulation of interstate commerce, and state could not regulate it.)
/
  • Further bolstered federal power over states.
  • Further promotes loose construction.
  • Expanded federal control over the growing economy.

1832 /

Worcester vs. Georgia

/
  • State of Georgia did not have jurisdiction over the Indians, and the Indians could stay in Georgia.
/
  • Lack of federal enforcement of Court’s decision set dangerous precedent in derogation of deference to principle of judicial review.
  • “Trail of Tears”
  • History would prove that executive’s failure to carry out S.Ct. ruling was the exception rather than the rule.