What was the outcome of the u.s. supreme court case mcculloch v. maryland (1819)?

McCulloch v. Maryland was the first, and probably the most important, Supreme Court decision addressing federal power. In this case, the justices held that the federal government has implied or "unenumerated" powers under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. That section is now known as the "necessary and proper" clause.

The Supreme Court established that congressional power extends beyond the scope of the Constitution and that state governments cannot interfere with the federal government. In doing so, the justices defined the scope of Congressional power and clarified the relationship between state and federal government.

It all started when Alexander Hamilton convinced Congress to establish a national bank.

Background

Shortly after George Washington was inaugurated as the nation's first president in 1789, his Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, proposed a plan to create a national bank. The idea was controversial from the start. Thomas Jefferson, who was Secretary of State at the time, feared having a central bank to regulate American currency would take too much power away from the states. (Fans of the hit musical Hamilton might recognize this as the conflict from "Cabinet Battle #1.") And the 1787 Constitutional Convention deliberately decided that the Constitution should not give Congress the power to create corporations.

But, Congress opted to try out Hamilton's idea, creating the First Bank of the United States with a 20-year charter. Then, they let the charter lapse in 1811. However, the nation faced significant economic problems after the War of 1812, which prompted Congress to create the Second Bank of the United States in 1816.

Some states passed laws to try and undermine the national bank's operations. Others, like Maryland, decided to tax it. In 1818, Maryland's state legislature passed a $15,000 annual tax on any bank operating within the state that was not charted by the state government. Only one institution fit that description - The Second Bank of the United States.

James W. McCulloch, the head of the bank's Baltimore branch, refused to pay the tax. The state of Maryland argued that because the Constitution was "silent on the subject of banks," the federal government was not authorized to create one. But when the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1819, the court disagreed.

What Are Enumerated Powers? What Are Implied Powers?

In constitutional law, we talk about government power in terms of what is specifically outlined in the Constitution and what isn't. The things the Constitution outlines for Congress to do are "enumerated" powers. Enumerated powers are also sometimes called expressed powers or explicit powers. Most of them are covered in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

The federal government's enumerated powers include:

• Collecting taxes
• Regulating foreign and domestic commerce
• Coining money
• Declaring war
• Supporting the army and navy
• Establishing lower federal courts

But Congress has the power to do many other things, thanks to the part of the Constitution which states it can make all laws "necessary and proper" to carry out its enumerated powers. These are known as the legislature's "unenumerated" or "implied" powers.

In the years that followed McCulloch, Congress used the "necessary and proper" argument to pass laws in many different areas. Later Supreme Court cases concluded that Congress's implied powers include:

• Gun control laws
• Federal minimum wage
• Income taxes
• Military draft
• Regulations on alcohol and narcotics
• Protecting disabled individuals
• Immigration

Some argue this goes against the Constitution's 10th Amendment, which states that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

How the Supreme Court Decided McCulloch v. Maryland

In deciding McCulloch v. Maryland, the Supreme Court had two questions to answer:

1. Did Congress have the power to establish a national bank?

2. Did Maryland's law taxing the bank unconstitutionally interfere with Congress's power?

Renowned attorney and orator Daniel Webster, who would later serve as Secretary of State, argued on behalf of the national bank.

Writing the court's unanimous decision, Chief Justice John Marshall stated that the Constitution grants Congress the power to make "all laws necessary and proper" for carrying out the capabilities outlined in Article I, Section 8. A supporter of national government power, Chief Justice Marshall defined "necessary" to mean anything "appropriate and legitimate." This gave Congress broad authority to carry out its constitutional duties, so long as its actions were logically tied to one of its enumerated constitutional powers.

Although the Constitution said nothing about the federal government establishing a bank, the court held that doing so would help Congress carry out its other duties - such as collecting taxes and maintaining armed forces.

Furthermore, Marshall concluded, Article VI establishes the Constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land." Therefore, states have no power to interfere with federal law, and Maryland's tax on the national bank was unconstitutional. They reasoned that if states can tax one facet of the federal government, they can tax them all, defeating the purpose of having a federal government at all. In a now-famous portion of the decision, Justice Marshall wrote, "the power to tax is the power to destroy."

The Impact of McCulloch v. Maryland

The decision in McCulloch had a profound effect on cases involving state vs. federal power. The doctrine of implied powers created by the court became a powerful tool for the federal government. The case established, once and for all, that when state and federal laws are in conflict, the federal law always wins.

McCulloch also paved the way for what some call the "administrative state," a form of government that employs an extensive professional class to oversee government, the economy, and society. Essentially, the federal regulators who oversee many aspects of American life, including environmental agencies and labor regulators. Without the McCulloch decision, some of these agencies might not exist. Whether the administrative state is a good thing or not is generally a matter of political opinion. Still, there's no doubt that debate would look very different if the Supreme Court had come to a different conclusion in McCulloch.

Read the Supreme Court's full opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland on FindLaw's Cases & Codes.

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations

Annotation

Primary Holding

States cannot interfere with the federal government when it uses its implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause to further its express constitutional powers.

The U.S. Congress created the Second Bank of the United States in 1816. A year later, the Bank opened a banch in Baltimore, Maryland, where it carried out all the normal operations of a bank. Its legitimacy was based solely on the applicability of the U.S. Constitution to Maryland. In 1818, however, the Maryland legislature voted to impose a tax on all banks within the state that were not chartered by the legislature. The Second Bank of the United States refused to comply with the law, resulting in a lawsuit against its head, James William McCulloch. The state successfully argued on appeal to the state appellate court that the Second Bank was unconstitutional because the Consititution did not provide a textual commitment for the federal government to charter a bank.

Majority

• John Marshall (Author)
• Bushrod Washington
• William Johnson, Jr.
• Henry Brockholst Livingston
• Thomas Todd
• Gabriel Duvall
• Joseph Story

In this unanimous decision, Marshall observed that the Second Bank was no different from the First Bank of the United States, of which the constitutionality had not been challenged. Echoing the decision in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, he also noted that the people rather than the states were responsible for ratifying the U.S. Constitution and thus taking away a measure of sovereignty from the states. He did not find it necessary to establish a textual basis in the Constitution that specifically addressed banks.

The most notable section of Marshall's opinion concerned the Necessary and Proper Clause. He rejected the state's argument that this clause was confined to authorizing only laws that were absolutely essential to carrying out its enumerated powers. Marshall felt that a broader interpretation was warranted, since the clause was not placed among the limitations on Congressional authority and thus should be viewed as an expansion on its authority. As a result, he redefined the meaning of "necessary" as something closer to "appropriate and legitimate," covering all methods for furthering the objectives covered by the enumerated powers. Moreover, Marshall struck down the tax as applied to the Second Bank as unconstitutional.

Later commentators have continued to challenge the logic in Marshall's opinion, some of them suggesting that it infringes on the Tenth Amendment. However, it remains valid to the current day, and his view that the federal government derives sovereignty from the people rather than the states has been widely accepted. The decision has been influential in nations that have similar legal systems, such as Australia.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.