Gibbons v. Ogden case brief

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)(p. 769) Defining Commerce

Facts: Two men given exclusive license by NY legislature to operate steamships in NY waters. They assigned Ogden right to operate a ferry. Gibbons violated NY license by operating ferry. However, his ferries licensed as operating under the coasting trade, which was in accordance with a 1793 federal statute.

Issue: Was the judgment granting Ogden an injunction inconsistent w/the Commerce Clause?

“Commerce”: Navigation is included within this term.

Holding: Congress had the power to enact the statute at issue in this case, NY monopoly preempted by federal law. Marshall said commerce was more than just traffic—intercourse (broad definition of commerce). Said commerce includes all aspects of business, which includes navigation. Said that “among” meant concerning more than one state. Also said that Congress could regulate as if there were no state governments. (rejected 10^th A. arguments)

He did concede of possibility that there was a narrow field by which states could regulate.

Three conditions of this must first be satisfied (all 3):

1. Completely internal or intra-state. (Shreveport Rate Case—travel b/w Marshall and Dallas)
2. Which do not effect other states.
3. It didn’t interfere w/any other general powers of the federal government. (Indirect) Congress has authority as court in Lottery Case to prohibit protective legislation from moving from one state to another.