For Your Data Gibbons V. Ogden Example Brief Summary
February 01, 2019
Edit
Gibbons v. Ogden case brief summary
22 USA one (1824)
Overview
A dispute arose every bit to the rule of the oper- ation of steamboats yesteryear the State of New York.
Facts
New York had granted Robert Livingston as well as Robert Fulton the exclusive correct to run steamboats betwixt New York as well as New Jersey. Livingston as well as Fulton so assigned this correct to Ogden. When Gibbons established competing steamboat routes, Ogden sued for enforcement of his monopoly rights. Gibbons responded yesteryear stating that a federal statute authorized him to navigate the routes inwards question.
Issue
Should Gibbons travel allowed to run his steamboats notwithstanding the monopoly granted yesteryear New York?
Holding
Gibbons should travel allowed to run his steam- boats.
Reasoning
Marshall, C.J. In attempting to do a monopoly on interstate navigation, New York has intruded upon powers reserved to Congress nether the Commerce Clause. The Clause states that Congress has the mightiness to regulate “commerce” without qualifying the grant of mightiness alongside whatever restrictions. Ogden thus takes an overly narrow persuasion of the Clause inwards arguing that “commerce” should travel interpreted to mention solely inwards the traffic of goods every bit contrasted alongside navigation inwards general.
22 USA one (1824)
Overview
A dispute arose every bit to the rule of the oper- ation of steamboats yesteryear the State of New York.
Facts
New York had granted Robert Livingston as well as Robert Fulton the exclusive correct to run steamboats betwixt New York as well as New Jersey. Livingston as well as Fulton so assigned this correct to Ogden. When Gibbons established competing steamboat routes, Ogden sued for enforcement of his monopoly rights. Gibbons responded yesteryear stating that a federal statute authorized him to navigate the routes inwards question.
Issue
Should Gibbons travel allowed to run his steamboats notwithstanding the monopoly granted yesteryear New York?
Holding
Gibbons should travel allowed to run his steam- boats.
Reasoning
Marshall, C.J. In attempting to do a monopoly on interstate navigation, New York has intruded upon powers reserved to Congress nether the Commerce Clause. The Clause states that Congress has the mightiness to regulate “commerce” without qualifying the grant of mightiness alongside whatever restrictions. Ogden thus takes an overly narrow persuasion of the Clause inwards arguing that “commerce” should travel interpreted to mention solely inwards the traffic of goods every bit contrasted alongside navigation inwards general.
Unlike the mightiness of taxation, the mightiness to regulate interstate commerce inwards this illustration cannot travel exercised concomitantly as well as harmoniously yesteryear the states as well as the federal government. In taxation, a soil may accept its percentage of the economical output without interfering alongside the federal government’s mightiness to accept from the remainder. In the electrical current case, New York’s attempted rule of navigation has brought its soil constabulary into conflict alongside a federal statute. In such a case, the federal statute must prevail.
Johnson, J. The nature of the mightiness to regulate commerce is such that its grant to Congress must travel plenary, leaving no residual mightiness to the states. It is of import to note, however, that identity of agency does non necessarily imply identity of power. Federal statutes may deed on navigation alongside the halt of regulating commerce piece soil statutes may deed on the same navigation alongside a persuasion toward preventing the spread of disease. No conflict exists every bit long every bit the states as well as the federal regime role regulations for sufficiently distinct ends.
Johnson, J. The nature of the mightiness to regulate commerce is such that its grant to Congress must travel plenary, leaving no residual mightiness to the states. It is of import to note, however, that identity of agency does non necessarily imply identity of power. Federal statutes may deed on navigation alongside the halt of regulating commerce piece soil statutes may deed on the same navigation alongside a persuasion toward preventing the spread of disease. No conflict exists every bit long every bit the states as well as the federal regime role regulations for sufficiently distinct ends.