John Marshall and the Marshall Court

By Meghan Gabel and Kathleen Reilly

John Marshall Served as Chief Justice from January 31,

1801-July 6 1835 at his death. Federalist Supported an expansive reading of

enumerated powers. Before acting as Chief Justice, Marshall served

in the House of Representatives and then was Secretary of State under Adams.

Dartmouth College vs. Woodward 1819 Issue: New Hampshire wanted to transform

Dartmouth, a private corporation, into a public state university.

Ruling of Dartmouth College vs. Woodward Dartmouth’s original charter served as a

contract that could not be interfered with by a state. Doing so would be unconstitutional.

Effects of Dartmouth College vs. Woodward

This ruling demonstrated Marshall’s view on charters and gave insight as to how he would proceed with them in the future.

This raised the value of having a charter, and many businesses and colleges began to seek one.

It created the idea that chartered institutions were above state regulation.

McCulloch vs. Maryland 1819 Issue: Maryland wanted to tax a national

corporation: the Baltimore branch of the Second Bank of the United States.

Questions raised: Did Congress have to power to charter a National Bank? Could a state tax an agency of the Federal Government that lay within its borders?

Ruling of McCulloch vs. Maryland Marshall said: The Constitution does not give the

right to charter a National Bank, however, the enumerated powers would allow for one to be chartered.

So the Second National Bank was not unconstitutional.

National powers are supreme over state powers, so a state cannot tax a Federal corporation. Maryland’s tax was unconstitutional.

Effects of McCulloch vs. Maryland This show of favoritism of

National policies over state rights upset Republicans.

Also, this ruling contributed to the unpopularity of the Second National Bank. The unpopularity contributed to the Panic of 1819.

Gibbons vs. Ogden 1824 Issue: New York had given the Clermont

and its creators Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton a monopoly on New York-New Jersey ferrying. However, other companies wanted in.

Ruling of Gibbons vs. Ogden The Constitution gave Congress the right to

regulate interstate trade, which would include the ferrying service. Therefore, their rulings override the New York approved monopoly. This monopoly was unconstitutional.

Effects of Gibbons vs. Ogden After the ruling, many

other state approved monopolies crumbled, as states and companies saw that these monopolies would be considered unconstitutional.

Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia 1831 Issue: Georgia was trying to

assert power over the Cherokees. The Cherokees say they are an independent nation within Georgia.

Ruling of Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia The Cherokees were not their

own republic; they were a dependent nation. They do have the rights to their land.

Worcester vs. Georgia 1832 Issue: Georgia wanted to apply its laws to

Indian, especially Cherokee, land. They wanted to be able to create restrictions on who could enter it. Samuel Worcester said this was unconstitutional.

Ruling of Worcester vs. Georgia John Marshall said that because the

Cherokees were a distinct nation, they were entitled to protection from the national government, and only the national government had authority over the Cherokee lands.

Effects of Worcester vs. Georgia and Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia Although Marshall made clear his intention to

protect the Cherokees and their land, President Andrew Jackson ignored these rulings and proceeded to remove the Cherokees from their land in the infamous Trail of Tears.

Patterns to Marshall’s Rulings In general, Marshall’s rulings

tended to enforce the Federalist idea that national laws needed to override state decisions.

Although some of Marshall’s rulings were unpopular, Marshall tried to bring a just, unbiased view of the Constitution to his cases.

Sources The Enduring Vision: A History of the

American People (6th edition) www.wikipedia.org