Case Brife

Case Brife

Gibbons v. Ogden , 22 U.S. 1, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. Ed. 23 (1824).

Facts

New York granted Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton the exclusive right of steam boat navigation on New York state waters. Livingston assigned to Ogden the right to navigate the waters between New York City and certain ports in New Jersey.

Ogden (P) brought this lawsuit seeking an injunction to restrain Gibbons (D) from operating steam ships on New York waters in violation of his exclusive privilege. Ogden was granted the injunction and Gibbons appealed, asserting that his steamships were licensed under the Act of Congress entitled “An act for enrolling and licensing ships and vessels to be employed in the coasting trade and fisheries, and for regulating the same.” Gibbons asserted that the Act of Congress superseded the exclusive privilege granted by the state of New York.

The Chancellor affirmed the injunction, holding that the New York law granting the exclusive privilege was not repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the grants were valid. Gibbons appealed and the decision was affirmed by the Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, the highest Court of law and equity in the state of New York. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issues

1. May a state enact legislation that regulates a purely internal affair regarding trade or the police power, or is pursuant to a power to regulate interstate commerce concurrent with that of Congress, which confers a privilege inconsistent with federal law?

2. Do states have the power to regulate those phases of interstate commerce which, because of the need of national uniformity, demand that their regulation, be prescribed by a single authority?

3. Does a state have the power to grant an exclusive right to the use of state waterways inconsistent with federal law?

Holding/Rule of Law

1. No. A state may not legislation inconsistent with federal law which regulates a purely internal affair regarding trade or the police power, or is pursuant to a power to regulate interstate commerce concurrent with that of Congress.

2. No. States do not have the power to regulate those phases of interstate commerce which, because of the need of national uniformity, demand that their regulation, be prescribed by a single authority.

3. No. A state does not have the power to grant an exclusive right to the use of state navigable waters inconsistent with federal law.

Rationale

The laws of New York granting to Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton the exclusive right of navigating state waters with steamboats are in collision with the acts of Congress. The acts of Congress under the Constitution regulating the coasting trade are supreme. State laws must yield to that supremacy, even though enacted in pursuance of powers acknowledged to remain in the States. A license, such as that granted to Gibbons, pursuant to acts of Congress for regulating the coasting trade under the commerce clause of Article I confers a permission to carry on that trade.

The power to regulate commerce extends to every type of commercial intercourse between the United States and foreign nations and among the States. The commerce power includes the regulation of navigation, including navigation exclusively for the transportation of passengers. It extends to vessels propelled by steam or fire as well as to wind and sails.

The power to regulate commerce is general, and has no limitations other than those prescribed in the Constitution itself. It is exclusively vested in Congress and no part of it can be exercised by a State.

While the commerce power does not stop at the external boundary of a State, it does not extend to commerce which is completely internal. State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating transportation and the internal commerce of a State fall within the state police power and are not within the power granted to Congress.

Disposition

Reversed – judgment for Gibbons.

My Thoughts

Personal Ideas

I believe that this holding on the issue makes complete sense. It is the perfect example of a slippery slope. If the Minnesota Agricultural Society allowed the International Society of Krishna Consciousness to distribute their material and sell it wherever they want, then other organizations will think that they can do the same thing. Then there is the potential for complete discord due to numerous organizations distributing and selling merchandise outside of the booths that are assigned. Also the Minnesota State Fair will lose money if people start selling their goods outside of the booths that are required to be rented. There is a limited amount of space for these individual organizations and thus first come, first serve thus causing people to have to pay for the booths and not being allowed to distribute wherever they want. It had nothing to do with the content that they were distributing but rather the fact that they would be taking away from the State Fair as a whole with their distraction in the middle of the fairgrounds instead of in the dedicated area. I believe the court made the correct choice and was not in violation of the First or Fourteenth Amendment.


Comments are closed.