Appellant
Thomas Gibbons
Appellee
Aaron Ogden
Appellant's Claim
That the exclusive right granted by the state of New York to Aaron Ogden to operate steamships within state waters was in conflict with the steamship license issued under an act of Congress to Thomas Gibbons.
Chief Lawyers for Appellant
Thomas A. Emmet, Thomas J. Oakley
Chief Lawyers for Appellee
William Wirt, Daniel Webster, David B. Ogden
Justices for the Court
Gabriel Duvall, William Johnson, John Marshall (writing for the Court), Joseph Story, Thomas Todd, Bushrod Washington
Justices Dissenting
None (Smith Thompson did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
2 March 1824
Decision
That a state cannot grant exclusive rights to navigate in its waters, becausethis is a breach of Congress' right to regulate interstate commerce, as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Significance
This was the first case ever to go to the Supreme Court under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The case of Gibbons v. Ogden has been called "the emancipation proclamation of American commerce." The ruling in this case established the importance of commerce between the states, and of any technological advance that might enable commerce between the states.
Steamships: Navigating for the Future
The first chapter in the Gibbons v. Ogden story began in 1807, when Robert Fulton and Robert R. Livingston won the exclusive right to operate steamboats in New York waters. Soon after, they won another exclusive grant to operate steamships in the state of Louisiana, thus obtaining control over some of the major commercial water routes in the United States.
Soon, other people began to get into the steamboat business. They too won monopolies to operate steamboats in the waters of various states. Meanwhile, theUnited States was expanding westward, and steamboats were becoming increasingly important in connecting the various parts of the growing nation. But since many different companies had carved up the rights to different state waterways among themselves, it was difficult for any single company to carry goodsfrom state to state.
Citizens of New York state began to complain about the way monopolies dominated the steamboat business. The New Jersey legislature also took action: theypassed a law authorizing its officials to seize and confiscate any steamboatsoperating under the New York monopoly. Clearly, the situation did not bode well for interstate commerce.
A Fight Between Two Partners
Enter Thomas Gibbons and Aaron Ogden. These two men had once been partners ina steamship business. But soon, they had a falling out and began a complicated series of legal battles. One of these became the landmark case of Gibbons v. Ogden.
When the case began, Aaron Ogden was operating a steamship line between New York and Elizabethtown, New Jersey. Ogden had bought a license from Livingston, granting him access to Livingston's exclusive rights to New York steamboattraffic.
Gibbons resented the monopolistic power of his former partner. He began running his own boats between New York and New Jersey. Ogden, in turn, tried to get an injunction against Gibbons from the Chancellor of New York State.
According to Ogden, New York State law protected his monopoly. Gibbons, on the other hand, pointed out that he had a license to engaged in the "coasting"trade, a license issued under an Act of Congress. Ogden claimed that state law took precedence here. Gibbons argued that federal law overrode the laws ofa single state.
The first round of the fight went to Ogden. New York State courts found thatthe state did have the right to issue exclusive licenses, because navigation,not commerce, was involved. Of course, said the New York courts, if Congressactually passed a law that concerned navigation, state law might be overruled. But since no such law had been passed, New York was within its rights.
Commerce or Navigation?
However, the U.S. Supreme Court saw things differently. In the decision written by Chief Justice Marshall, the Court began by referring to the so-called "Commerce" clause of the U.S. Constitution: "Congress shall have the power . .. to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes . . . "
The Court also cited a provision of the Constitution that gave Congress the power to "promote the progress of science and useful arts . . . "
Basically, the Court ruling acknowledged the importance of steamship trafficto U.S. interstate commerce. Since steamships helped to facilitate commerce,the Court found that they came under Congress' power to regulate commerce. Therefore, any state attempts to regulate steamship activity between states--such as Gibbons' ships, which traveled between New York and New Jersey--was a breach of the Constitution.
The Court ruling established three major principles:
(1) "Commerce" as defined by the Constitution is not limited simply to buyingand selling, but also includes navigation;
(2) The operation of steamships is an aspect of commerce, and therefore protected under the U.S. Constitution;
(3) States could not make any laws that would in any way result in the restriction of interstate commerce, which, again, was protected under the U.S. Constitution.
Implications for the Future
The immediate impact of Gibbons v. Ogden was to open up the field fora wide range of steamship companies, and, consequently, to promote nationwidesteamship travel and commerce in the United States. However, the ruling hadeven more far-reaching implications. For example, when railroads, telegraphs,telephones, oil and gas pipelines, and airplanes were developed, they reliedupon the protection of Gibbons v. Ogden to operate across state borders. Even today, when questions of interstate commerce come before the Court,the case of Gibbons v. Ogden helps to shape the Court's decisions.
Related Cases
Thomas Gibbons
Appellee
Aaron Ogden
Appellant's Claim
That the exclusive right granted by the state of New York to Aaron Ogden to operate steamships within state waters was in conflict with the steamship license issued under an act of Congress to Thomas Gibbons.
Chief Lawyers for Appellant
Thomas A. Emmet, Thomas J. Oakley
Chief Lawyers for Appellee
William Wirt, Daniel Webster, David B. Ogden
Justices for the Court
Gabriel Duvall, William Johnson, John Marshall (writing for the Court), Joseph Story, Thomas Todd, Bushrod Washington
Justices Dissenting
None (Smith Thompson did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
2 March 1824
Decision
That a state cannot grant exclusive rights to navigate in its waters, becausethis is a breach of Congress' right to regulate interstate commerce, as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Significance
This was the first case ever to go to the Supreme Court under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The case of Gibbons v. Ogden has been called "the emancipation proclamation of American commerce." The ruling in this case established the importance of commerce between the states, and of any technological advance that might enable commerce between the states.
Steamships: Navigating for the Future
The first chapter in the Gibbons v. Ogden story began in 1807, when Robert Fulton and Robert R. Livingston won the exclusive right to operate steamboats in New York waters. Soon after, they won another exclusive grant to operate steamships in the state of Louisiana, thus obtaining control over some of the major commercial water routes in the United States.
Soon, other people began to get into the steamboat business. They too won monopolies to operate steamboats in the waters of various states. Meanwhile, theUnited States was expanding westward, and steamboats were becoming increasingly important in connecting the various parts of the growing nation. But since many different companies had carved up the rights to different state waterways among themselves, it was difficult for any single company to carry goodsfrom state to state.
Citizens of New York state began to complain about the way monopolies dominated the steamboat business. The New Jersey legislature also took action: theypassed a law authorizing its officials to seize and confiscate any steamboatsoperating under the New York monopoly. Clearly, the situation did not bode well for interstate commerce.
A Fight Between Two Partners
Enter Thomas Gibbons and Aaron Ogden. These two men had once been partners ina steamship business. But soon, they had a falling out and began a complicated series of legal battles. One of these became the landmark case of Gibbons v. Ogden.
When the case began, Aaron Ogden was operating a steamship line between New York and Elizabethtown, New Jersey. Ogden had bought a license from Livingston, granting him access to Livingston's exclusive rights to New York steamboattraffic.
Gibbons resented the monopolistic power of his former partner. He began running his own boats between New York and New Jersey. Ogden, in turn, tried to get an injunction against Gibbons from the Chancellor of New York State.
According to Ogden, New York State law protected his monopoly. Gibbons, on the other hand, pointed out that he had a license to engaged in the "coasting"trade, a license issued under an Act of Congress. Ogden claimed that state law took precedence here. Gibbons argued that federal law overrode the laws ofa single state.
The first round of the fight went to Ogden. New York State courts found thatthe state did have the right to issue exclusive licenses, because navigation,not commerce, was involved. Of course, said the New York courts, if Congressactually passed a law that concerned navigation, state law might be overruled. But since no such law had been passed, New York was within its rights.
Commerce or Navigation?
However, the U.S. Supreme Court saw things differently. In the decision written by Chief Justice Marshall, the Court began by referring to the so-called "Commerce" clause of the U.S. Constitution: "Congress shall have the power . .. to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes . . . "
The Court also cited a provision of the Constitution that gave Congress the power to "promote the progress of science and useful arts . . . "
Basically, the Court ruling acknowledged the importance of steamship trafficto U.S. interstate commerce. Since steamships helped to facilitate commerce,the Court found that they came under Congress' power to regulate commerce. Therefore, any state attempts to regulate steamship activity between states--such as Gibbons' ships, which traveled between New York and New Jersey--was a breach of the Constitution.
The Court ruling established three major principles:
(1) "Commerce" as defined by the Constitution is not limited simply to buyingand selling, but also includes navigation;
(2) The operation of steamships is an aspect of commerce, and therefore protected under the U.S. Constitution;
(3) States could not make any laws that would in any way result in the restriction of interstate commerce, which, again, was protected under the U.S. Constitution.
Implications for the Future
The immediate impact of Gibbons v. Ogden was to open up the field fora wide range of steamship companies, and, consequently, to promote nationwidesteamship travel and commerce in the United States. However, the ruling hadeven more far-reaching implications. For example, when railroads, telegraphs,telephones, oil and gas pipelines, and airplanes were developed, they reliedupon the protection of Gibbons v. Ogden to operate across state borders. Even today, when questions of interstate commerce come before the Court,the case of Gibbons v. Ogden helps to shape the Court's decisions.
Related Cases
- Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U.S. 342 (1914).
- Mulford v. Smith, 307 U.S. 38 (1939).
- National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833 (1976).
User Comments Add a comment…