Heather Mitchell
Posc. 455
1. Gibbons V. Ogden
2. 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824)
3. Facts: The New York legislature allowed Robert Livingston a monopoly in steamboat operations in the New York Harbor and Hudson river since, in 1798, it was not seen as profitable. However, Livingston and Robert Fulton developed a commercial steamship that was able to make a large profit. Soon after the two gained a monopoly in New Orleans leading to them having control over two of the most important and financially wealthy ports in the county. Due to expansion into the west, steamboats were extremely valuable and other states enacted laws in order to retaliate against the prices and strength of the monopoly started by Livingston and Fulton. Aaron Ogden and Thomas Gibbons entered an agreement in 1817, which allowed them not only control of the former Livingston- Fulton monopoly but also allowed them to work on the coast due to a federal permit. This soon ended, however. The monopoly persuaded Ogden to cut ties with Gibbons resulting in retaliation. Gibbons soon began to challenge the monopoly by running his business in the New York harbor and Hudson river. Ogden went to the New York court and sided with him.
4. Issues: Whether intrastate commerce fell under the Commerce clause in the Constitution
5. Decision and Action: Yes, intrastate navigation and commerce does fall under the commerce clause listed in the Constitution and therefore the monopoly was unconstitutional since the state did not have the power to grant it.
6. Reasoning: Justice Marshall wrote the majority opinion for the Court. He first argued that navigation does fall under commerce since it is understood that the United States has the authority to decide which vessels and people enter their waters before any translation is made. In addition, He argued that navigation was so ingrained into the definition that it need not be stated since the founders understood it to be central to commerce without explaining or expanding upon it. Nextly, he focused on whether commerce stopped at the border of the state or had to continue within it. He stated that intrastate commerce continued into the states’ borders since it was an essential part of intrastate commerce. He did, however, state that it does not apply to goods that are interstate commerce. States can regulate as long as it does not interfere with the federal government’s authority over commerce.
7. Concurring Opinion: No concurring opinion is listed in the book
8. Dissenting Opinion: No dissenting opinion is listed in the book
9. Voting Coalitions: In a six to zero vote, justices Duvall, Johnson, Marshall, Story, Todd, and Washington voted in favor of Gibbons arguing that the monopoly was indeed unconstitutional. 10. Comments and Impact: This case is important since it expanded the definition of commerce to include navigation. In addition, it created concepts of trade and commerce continuing beyond the physical state borders. Finally, this case gave the federal government authority to regulate commerce, navigation, and transportation inside a state as long as it is intrastate, not interstate commerce. I agree with the decision written by Justice Marshall since a monopoly like the one held by Ogden, created barriers to trade and transportation since goods and people need to travel to certain ports once inside a particular state in order to complete transactions.