Gibbons V. Ogden Case Study

Chief Justice John Marshall was an intelligent man who served in the United States Supreme Court from 1801 until the year 1835. During this time, Marshall heard over 1,000 cases and wrote 519 decisions (Fox). One of the cases he heard took place in 1824, and it’s known as Gibbons v. Ogden. This case is a rather simple one, but an important one nonetheless. A problem arose when two men, named Thomas Gibbons and Aaron Ogden, found out that they were both operating steamboat ferries along the same route. These men had both received permission to operate their steamboats from two different places. Gibbons received permission from the Federal Government, while Ogden had received his from a state government. When the case reached the Supreme Court,

Ogden soon found out, however, that a man named Thomas Gibbons already ran two ferries along the same route. Because of this competition, Ogden went to a New York State court to try and get the court to order Gibbons to refrain from operating his ferries. Ogden’s reasoning behind this was that the State of New York had given him a license that allowed him exclusive rights to operate this specific route, meaning Gibbons should not be allowed to run his ferries on the Hudson River. Furthermore, Ogden claimed that Gibbon’s federal coasting license did not include landing rights in New York City (Magruder 800). The New York court agreed with Ogden, and when the case was appealed, the New York Supreme Court also agreed with the previous decision. Gibbons was told to stop operating his

Hood & Sons, Inc. v. DuMond. The Hood Company was a Massachusetts company that had three milk-receiving stations in New York. The milk from these facilities was distributed in Boston, Massachusetts. Hood wanted to obtain a license for another receiving station in New York, so he went to Du Mond and asked for permission. Du Mond claimed that Hood could not have this license because a New York law stated licenses couldn’t be given out unless the Commissioner, Du Mond, was “satisfied that the issue would serve the public interest and would not cause destructive competition in a market already adequately served” ("H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond."). Basically, DuMond believed that the expansion of Hood’s facilities would reduce the local supply of milk and result in destructive competition ("Hood & Sons Inc. v. DuMond."). Hood claimed this was an unconstitutional “burden on interstate commerce” (“H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond.”). When the case reached the Supreme Court, it was decided that a restriction imposed by a state law is invalid by the Commerce Clause if the state law’s purpose is to curtail the volume of interstate commerce for the benefit of the local economy. A local embargo is invalid under the Commerce Clause, the denial of the license to Hood was not consistent with the Federal Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act, and New York’s law was a burden on interstate commerce for their own state’s