Aaron Ogden Case Digest

465 Words1 Page

Facts A monopoly in New York required steam boats traveling in the state to be licensed. If a boat was unlicensed, it would be forfeited to the owners of the monopoly. Aaron Ogden, an ex-governor of New Jersey, had a licensed steamboat he used to travel between New York and New Jersey. Thomas Gibbons, Ogden’s former associate, used his steamboat along the same path as Ogden to compete with him. Gibbons held a coasting license under a 1793 congressional act, but did not own a license from the New York monopoly. In 1819, Ogden brought suit against Gibbons in the New York Court of Chancery in order to stop the competition. The court ruled in favor of Ogden, deciding the 1793 congressional act did not conflict with the New York monopoly and Gibbons had no right to use his boat in New York. The New York Court of Errors affirmed the decision, and Gibbons appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issue
Did the New York law violate the Commerce Clause of …show more content…

Regulating commerce between nations could not exclude laws concerning navigation because this would mean no regulation on boats traveling into and out of states, which the states had been exercising since the “commencement of the government.” The Court argued Article I, section 9 discussing port preferences and paying taxes directly related to navigation and this was proof the Constitution itself discussed navigation in relation to commerce. Chief Justice Marshall also argued the power of commerce was not just with foreign countries, but also within the United States itself. This meant Congress could use their power within the states to regulate commerce. Congress’ power to regulate was plenary and had no limitations other than those the Constitution defined. Therefore, Congress had the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Supremacy Clause made the act of congress superior to the New York statute, invalidating the New York

Open Document