Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 186, 6 L. Ed. 23 (1824)



Facts

 The Court struck down NY’s attempt to grant a steamboat monopoly to Robert Fulton (ultimately franchised to Ogden). Ogden claimed that river traffic was not commerce under the Commerce Clause (commerce is about buying and selling stuff) and further argued that Congress could not interfere w/ NYs grant of an exclusive monopoly within its own borders.
 Ogdens assertion: NY could control river traffic within NY all the way to the border w/ NJ, and NJ could control river traffic within NJ all the way to the border w/ NY, leaving Congress w/ the power to control the traffic as it crossed the state line. => Congress could not invalidate his monopoly as long as he only transported passengers within NY. The S.Ct., however, found that Congress could invalidate his monopoly since it was operational on an interstate channel of navigation.
 Gibbons: license from the federal, Ogden: license from the NY city
 Ogden obtained injunction against Gibbons from the NY courts.

                    Issue


 If a state law conflicts w/ a congressional act regulating commerce, is the congressional act controlling?


Ruling

  The Court assumed that interstate commerce required movement of the subject of regulation across state borders. The Constitution enumerates power but does not define power (If you define something you specify it to its particularity, when you enumerate it you sort of put it out in bullet points).
 The decision contains the following principles;
(i) Commerce is intercourse, all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse.”;
(ii) commerce among the states cannot stop at the external boundary-line of each state, but may be introduced into the interior... Comprehensive as the word among is, it may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more states than one.;
(iii) The Commerce power is the power to regulate, that is to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed” which “may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution.