Skip to main content

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

Definition

A Supreme Court case that adopted an expansive view of the scope of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution by holding that Congress had the power to regulate interstate commerce. The case involved the right of competing ferry services to operate in New York state waters after the New York state legislature had granted a monopoly. The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Marshall, held that federal law preempted the New York-granted monopoly; thus, the state legislature’s granting of exclusive steamboat usage rights to one company was an impermissible restriction on interstate commerce. The Supreme Court refined the definition of “commerce” to include all phases of business (including navigation) and not just business traffic. Additionally, the Supreme Court held that Congress could regulate intrastate commerce if it had an impact on commercial activities in other states: “Commerce among the States, cannot stop at the external boundary line of each State, but may be introduced into the interior.”

For a full text of Gibbons v. Ogden, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0022_0001_ZO.html

Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary

A U.S. Supreme Court case in which Chief Justice John Marshall's decision struck down state barriers to interstate commerce. The case involved a steamboat operator who was denied a license by one of the states he serviced.

Definition provided by Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary.

August 19, 2010, 5:27 pm

 

"Contrary to Justice Souter’s suggestion, Gibbons did not exempt the commerce power from this cardinal rule of constitutional law [that the Court is the "ultimate expositor of the constitutional text"]. His assertion that, from Gibbons on, public opinions has been the only restraint on the congressional exercise of the commerce power is true only insofar as it contends that political accountability is and has been the only limit on Congress’ exercise of the commerce power within that power’s outer bounds…. Gibbons did not remove from this Court the authority to define that boundary." C.J. Rehnquist, United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 616 (2000).