Q:

What is the importance of Gibbons v. Ogden?

A:

Quick Answer

The Supreme Court case Gibbons v. Odgen is widely accepted as the first true instance of the power struggle between federal and state governments. When Marshall Court ruled in favor of Gibbons, it was concluded that the federal government holds more power than state governments regarding the issue of interstate commerce.

Continue Reading
What is the importance of Gibbons v. Ogden?
Credit: Bruce Bennett Getty Images News Getty Images

Full Answer

Aaron Ogden was a powerhouse in the commerce industry of New York. He owned various waterways, and he forced vessels from other states to pay significant fees to navigate through his waterways. Ogden was able to charge these high fees because the state of New York had granted him a monopoly license.

Thomas Gibbons was a trader who transported goods, via steamboat, between New York and New Jersey. Gibbons felt that he shouldn't have to pay Ogden's fees because he had a federal coastal license. Gibbons claimed that New York could not supersede the authority of Congress regarding commerce between multiple states. The Supreme Court, headed by John Marshall, agreed with Gibbons and ruled that the national government had exclusive power regarding interstate commerce and navigation. The ruling took place on Feb. 4, 1824.

This ruling was one of the first instances of the national government claiming authority over a state government. States, especially in the South, became fearful that the federal government would make similar rulings that undermined state decisions about issues like slavery and taxation.

Learn more about Law
Sources:

Related Questions

  • Q:

    What do gibbons eat?

    A:

    Gibbons primarily eat fruit, says National Geographic. They are particularly fond of figs. They supplement their fruit-based diet with a variety of plants. They also eat insects, bird eggs and small birds, says Enchanted Learning.

    Full Answer >
    Filed Under:
  • Q:

    What is a summary of the Miranda v. Arizona case?

    A:

    In the Miranda v. Arizona case in 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the police must give suspects specific warnings prior to custodial interrogations, notes Brooks Holland for the American Bar Association. The court ruled that the police must inform a suspect of his right to remain silent and his right to an attorney, and must tell him he will be provided with an attorney if he cannot afford one and what he says can be used against him.

    Full Answer >
    Filed Under:
  • Q:

    What was the Worcester v. Georgia court case?

    A:

    The New Georgia Encyclopedia explains that Worcester v. Georgia was a U.S. Supreme Court case held in 1832 that established that the Cherokee Indians inhabiting territory in Georgia had sovereign powers. The name "Worcester" belonged to a white missionary, Samuel Worcester, who became a close political advisor and legal advocate to the Cherokee Nation.

    Full Answer >
    Filed Under:
  • Q:

    What was the case of Brown vs. Board of Education?

    A:

    Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka was a landmark case regarding racial segregation in public schools heard by the U.S. Supreme Court from 1952 to 1954, according to the United States Courts. The court found that segregation violated the 14th Amendment and declared the practice unconstitutional.

    Full Answer >
    Filed Under:

Explore