In 1808[3] the Legislature of the State of New

Former New Jersey Gov. Livingston and Fulton subsequently also petitioned other states and territorial legislatures for similar monopolies, hoping to develop a national network of steamboat lines, but only the Orleans Territory accepted their petition and awarded them a monopoly on the lower Mississippi.

Click here to contact us for media inquiries, and please donate here to support our continued expansion. Thomas Gibbons, another steamboat operator, competed with Aaron Ogden on this same route but held a federal coasting license issued by an act of Congress. What Is the "Necessary and Proper" Clause in the US Constitution? The Court interpreted "among" as "intermingled with. [4], Aaron Ogden filed a complaint asking the courts to stop Thomas Gibbons from operating boats for commercial use from New Jersey to New York. Subsequently, Aaron Ogden purchased from Fulton and Livingston rights to operate steamboats between New York City and New Jersey.

"[6] Though the power of Congress was extensive, some restrictions were found to apply to this ruling. Commerce among the States, cannot stop at the external boundary line of each State, but may be introduced into the interior ... Comprehensive as the word "among" is, it may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more States than one. If you don’t have one already, it’s free and easy to sign up.

The LandmarkCases.org glossary compiles all of the important vocab terms from case materials. After losing his case in another New York court, Gibbons appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the Constitution grants the federal government the overriding power to regulate how interstate commerce is conducted. New York law was invalid because the Commerce Clause of the Constitution designated power to Congress to regulate interstate commerce and the broad definition of commerce included navigation. [4], Aware of the potential of the new steamboat navigation, competitors challenged Livingston and Fulton by arguing that the commerce power of the federal government was exclusive and superseded state laws. Gibbons v. Ogden, (1824), U.S. Supreme Court case establishing the principle that states cannot, by legislative enactment, interfere with the power of Congress to regulate commerce. In interpreting the power of Congress as to commerce "among the several states": Defining how far the power of Congress extends: Thomas H. Cox. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, CATO, “Kids, Guns, and the Commerce Clause: Is the Court Ready for Constitutional Government?” accessed December 5, 2013, Street Law, “How the case Moved Through the Court System,” accessed December 5, 2013, SCOTUSblog, "The simple case for the Affordable Care Act’s constitutionality," August 3, 2011, https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Gibbons_v._Ogden&oldid=8158203, Tracking election disputes, lawsuits, and recounts, Ballotpedia's Daily Presidential News Briefing, Submit a photo, survey, video, conversation, or bio. Gibbons disagreed arguing that the U.S. Constitution gave Congress the sole power over interstate commerce. “A highly original and much-needed book that puts Gibbons v.Ogden in historical context.… [A] major contribution to our understanding of a landmark case.” Daniel W. Hamilton, author of The Limits of Sovereignty “The Steamboat Case of 1824 is familiar to most historians of the United States, but the background to it is not. Aaron Ogden held a license under this monopoly to operate steamboats between New Jersey and New York.

What would become the central conflict in the case, however, was whether or not the State of New York had the right to grant the monopoly on interstate waterways. This case explores the legal concepts of federalism, national supremacy, and the Commerce Clause. Aaron Ogden filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of New York asking the court to restrain Thomas Gibbons from operating on these waters. The state of New York agreed in 1798 to grant Robert Fulton and his backer, Robert R. Livingston, a monopoly on steamboat navigation in state waters if they developed a steamboat capable of traveling 4 miles (6.4 km) per hour … In his opinion, Chief Justice John Marshall provided a clear definition of the word “commerce” and the meaning of the term, “among the several states” in the Commerce Clause. In 1808, the government of New York granted a steamboat company a monopoly to operate its boats on the state’s waters, which included bodies of water that stretched between states. [8] That question remained undecided for the next 140 years until the Supreme Court held in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. (1964) that federal patent law preempted similar state laws. Gibbons v. Ogden, (1824), U.S. Supreme Court case establishing the principle that states cannot, by legislative enactment, interfere with the power of Congress to regulate commerce.

Ogden won in 1820 in the New York Court of Chancery. © 2020 Street Law, Inc., All Rights Reserved. The case of Gibbons v. Ogden , decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1824, was a major step in the expansion of the power of the federal government to deal with challenges to U.S. domestic policy .