SUPREME COURTS DECISIONS By Chihao Tran APUSH Per

SUPREME COURT’S DECISIONS By: Chihao Tran APUSH- Per. 3

MARBURY VS. MADISON • Case in 1803. • William Marbury was named to be a Justice of the Peace with his commission (letter) signed and sealed. • William Marbury worked under the 2 nd President, John Adams. • Marbury’s commission was not sent to Adams before he left office, • Thomas Jefferson took over as the 3 rd President of the U. S and his secretary of state was James Madison. • James Madison held the role of transmitting appointments (positions) and did not approved of Marbury. • Madison refused to give the commission to Marbury.

MARBURY VS. MADISON • Marbury appealed to the Supreme Court. • John Marshall was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at this ruling. • Based on past cases, the Court believed that Marbury had a right to his commission but did not have the authority to make Madison deliver the commission. • The ruling was decided toward Madison’s victory.

MARBURY VS. MADISON • Judiciary Act of 1789 - the judicial power to one Supreme Court. • Gave the Supreme Court the power to compel executive officials to act in such matters as the delivery of commissions. • The Supreme Court ruled that Congress was abusing their authority in creating the stature that the Constitution defined the power of the judicial branch and that the legislature has no right to expand them. (unconstitutional) • The Supreme Court voided that stature through judicial review and gained major power to nullify an act of Congress. • Judicial Review is the doctrine under which legislative and/or executive actions are subject to review (and possible invalidation) by the judiciary. • This case helped define the boundary of jurisdiction between the judicial and executive branch.

MARBURY VS. MADISON

FLETCHER VS. PECK • Case in 1810. • After the American Revolution, Georgia claimed the Yazoo lands, territories belonging to the Indian Reserve. • Georgia split the Yazoo lands into four tracts and sold cheaply to four land developing companies. • The land grants given to these companies were called the Yazoo Land Act of 1795. • The Yazoo Land Act of 1795 was a scandal from the Georgia governors and legislature. • The Land act was repealed and voided transactions made under it.

FLETCHER VS. PECK • Robert Fletcher and John Peck were involved with the Yazoo Land Act of 1795. • Robert Fletcher bought a tract of land from John Peck during the Yazoo Land Act. • John Peck did not had clear title of the land when he sold it to Fletcher. • Fletcher brought this issue to the Supreme Court regarding to the land ownership would be maintained. • Since the Yazoo Land Act of 1795 was repealed, Fletcher would lose ownership of the land.

FLETCHER VS. PECK • John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court of this ruling. • It was ruled that the state legislature’s repeal of the law was void because it was unconstitutional. • John Marshall stated that the sale between Fletcher and Peck was a binding contract even if done illegally. The Contract Clause of the Constitution cannot be invalidated due the repeal of the Land Act. • The Contact Clause protected the people’s property rights. • One case that the Supreme Court use their power to invalidate state laws in conflict of the Constitution.

MCCULLOUGH VS. MARYLAND • Case of 1819. • State of Maryland wanted to impede the branch of the Second Bank of the United States by placing a tax on the notes of the bank. • James William Mc. Culloch is the head of the Baltimore branch of the Second Bank of the United States. • Mc. Culloch refused to pay the tax and the issue was sent to the Maryland Court of Appeals. • Maryland stated that banks were not stated in the Constitution and that the federal government was not authorized to charter a bank. Maryland won in this court but the issue was appealed to the Supreme Court.

MCCULLOUGH VS. MARYLAND • Supreme Court ruled that Congress had the power to create the Bank. • First Bank of the United States as the authority for the constitutionality of the second bank. • The people are the ones who ratified the Constitution and that the people are sovereign. • The Constitution does not specify about a central bank, but it cannot be set that Congress cannot build such an institution. • Necessary and Proper Cause- allowed Congress to use their power for an objective for a strong national government and country as it is not forbidden by the Constitution.

MCCULLOCH VS. MARYLAND • [A] criterion of what is constitutional, and of what is not so. . . is the end, to which the measure relates as a mean. If the end be clearly comprehended within any of the specified powers, and if the measure have an obvious relation to that end, and is not forbidden by any particular provision of the Constitution, it may safely be deemed to come within the compass of the national authority. There is also this further criterion which may materially assist the decision: Does the proposed measure abridge a pre -existing right of any State, or of any individual? If it does not, there is a strong presumption in favour of its constitutionality. . -Alexander Hamilton

MCCULLOCH VS. MARYLAND • It was ruled as Maryland cannot tax the bank as it is unconstitutional. • Supreme Court voided Maryland’s tax law. • The Constitution granted Congress implied power that relates to the Constitution, not enumerated within the text. • States does not have the power to defy constitutional actions of power by the Federal government. • Formation of balance between the federalism, federal power, and states’ power.

GIBBONS VS. OGDEN • Case of 1824. • Aaron Ogden and Thomas Gibbons competed over navigation privileges within the water. • Aaron Ogden gained a monopoly on the river between New York and New Jersey by the state of New York. • Thomas Gibbons with a license of navigation under the act of Congress granted of the ferry. • Famous lawyers discussed over this case: • Ogden- Thomas Addis Emmet and Thomas J. Oakley • Gibbons- William Wirt and Daniel Webster

GIBBONS VS. OGDEN • Aaron Ogden settled in court against Thomas Gibbons at the Court of Chancery of New York to prevent Gibbons operating in the waterways. • Debated that states passed laws on interstate matters and should have the same power as Congress regarding to interstate commerce. (Ogden) • Debated that Congress has exclusive national power that supersede interstate commerce. (Gibbons) • Favored toward Aaron Ogden and the issue was appealed to the Supreme Court.

GIBBONS VS. OGDEN • Supreme Court favored Gibbons. • Commerce Clause of the Constitution- Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce and navigation. • Commerce is more than traffic, it is the trade of commodities. • Including intercourse, also meaning navigation. • Coasting Act of 1793 - federal license takes precedence over any state licenses.

GIBBONS VS. OGDEN

DARTMOUTH COLLEGE VS. WOODWARD • Case in 1819. • Trustees of the original Dartmouth College vs. Woodward, secretary of the new trustees created by the legislature of New Hampshire. • Convert Dartmouth College from a private college to a public institution. • King George III granted a charter to Dartmouth College in 1769. • After the American Revolution, the legislature of New Hampshire changed Dartmouth into a public institution by giving the governor the power to appoint positions to the board of trustees and creating a state board of visitors with veto power over trustee decisions. • Trustees of Dartmouth College declared it to be unconstitutional.

DARTMOUTH COLLEGE VS. WOODWARD • The Supreme Court ruled that the trustees of Dartmouth College was in favor • Belief in the sanctity of a contract. (King George III’s charter) • Dartmouth’s charter from Britain still qualified as a contract even if the U. S is not a royal colony. • A state cannot pass laws to impair a contract. (Constitution) • Contract referred as transactions involving individual property rights. • Contract Clause of Constitution. • Decision resulted in rise of American business corporation and free enterprise system.

DARTMOUTH COLLEGE VS. WOODWARD • Daniel Webster

COHEN VS. VIRGINIA (COMMONWEALTH) • Case of 1821. • Commonwealth of Virginia vs. Mendes J. Cohen and Philip J. Cohen • Commonwealth- political community founded for the common good, related to republicanism. • Congress established a National Lottery to fund Washington D. C or the District of Columbia. • Virginia created their own state lottery and banned out-of-state lottery tickets. • Philip and Mendes Cohen managed the Norfolk branch of Cohens Lottery and Exchange Office of Baltimore; a leading vendor of lottery tickets.

COHEN VS. VIRGINIA (COMMONWEALTH) • The Cohen brothers was fined for selling National Lottery tickets in Virginia. • Challenged the “free flow of commerce” in the Constitution; lotteries were one of the chief means that the government started to raise funds. • U. S. Senator William Pinkney and U. S. Representative David A. Ogden defended the Cohen brothers. • State courts favored in support that Virginia law prohibiting lotteries can be enforced. • Conflict between Supreme Court and court of Virginia as Virginia argued that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over criminal cases within states’ affairs. • Article III, section 2 of the Constitution- "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority. “ (Supreme Court)

COHEN VS. VIRGINIA (COMMONWEALTH) • All cases within federal law is within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. • Supremacy Clause- federal law superior to state law. • No restriction or limitation of the Constitution regarding Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over state cases. • Ruled in favor of the Cohen brothers. • Congress meant to authorize the National Lottery tickets only in the District of Columbia.