Answer:
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Issue: Who can ultimately decide what the law is?
Result: "It is explicitly the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is."
Importance: This decision gave the Court the ability to strike down laws on the grounds that they are unconstitutional (a power called judicial review).
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Issue: Can Congress establish a national bank, and if so, can a state tax this bank?
Result: The Court held that Congress had implied powers to establish a national bank under the "necessary and proper" clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Court also determined that United States laws trump state laws and consequently, a state could not tax the national bank.
Importance: The McCulloch decision established two important principles for constitutional law that continue today: implied powers and federal supremacy
ABA Groups Division for Public Education Programs Constitution Day
Landmark United States Supreme Court Cases
Share:
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Issue: Who can ultimately decide what the law is?
Result: "It is explicitly the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is."
Importance: This decision gave the Court the ability to strike down laws on the grounds that they are unconstitutional (a power called judicial review).
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Issue: Can Congress establish a national bank, and if so, can a state tax this bank?
Result: The Court held that Congress had implied powers to establish a national bank under the "necessary and proper" clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Court also determined that United States laws trump state laws and consequently, a state could not tax the national bank.
Importance: The McCulloch decision established two important principles for constitutional law that continue today: implied powers and federal supremacy.
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
Issue: Can states pass laws that challenge the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce?
Result: The Court held that it is the role of the federal government to regulate commerce and that state governments cannot develop their own commerce-regulating laws. Further, the Court created a wide definition for “commerce,” reasoning that the term encompassed more than just selling and buying. In this case, the Court determined that regulating water navigation was in fact an act that regulated commerce.
Importance: The impact of Gibbons is still felt today as it gives the federal government a much-broader base to regulate economic transactions.
