Landmark Cases

#49-52
Micah Harvey
 49- Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
Facts- A New York Law allowed for certain individuals to run a
monopoly on navigating the rivers by steamboat. Steamboats
from other states would have to pay fines to operate on certain
sections of the rivers.

Question- Did New York exercise authority in a realm reserved

exclusively to Congress, under the Commerce Clause.

Conclusion- 7-0 in favor of Gibbons, New York was inserting

authority to a realm reserved exclusively to Congress under the
Commerce Clause.

Effect- Interstate commerce can only be regulated by Congress

under the Constitution. The federal government has exclusive
power over interstate commerce
 50- Barron v. Baltimore (1833)
Facts- Barron operated a lucrative port in Baltimore. The
expanding of the city caused sand to accumulate in the harbor,
and Barron sued the city.

Question- Does the Fifth Amendment deny the states as well

as the national government the right to take private property
for public use without properly compensating the owner of the
land?

Conclusion- 8-0 in favor of Baltimore, the Fifth Amendment

only applies to the national government, not the states.

Effect- Amendments contain no expression of intention to

apply to the state governments so the court cannot apply them
as so.
 51- Dred Scott v Sandford (1857)

Facts- Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri. He moved to Illinois

where slavery was illegal, and then returned to Missouri and sued
for his freedom saying that he was a free man because of the
Missouri Compromise of 1820.

Question- Was Dred Scott free or slave?

Conclusion- 7-2 Scott was a slave in missouri so he is not a

citizen of Illinois, and could not be a citizen of any state or the US
as he is a slave. Taney reached the conclusion that no
descendant of a slave could be a citizen for Article III purposes.

Effect- Dred was a slave in Missouri so he could not be protected

under Article III and IV, therefore could not sue for his freedom.
 52-Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Facts- State law mandated separate train cars for blacks and
whites. Homer Plessy, who was caucasian, refused to
move from the white only car to a car reserved for blacks and
was arrested.

Question- Is Louisiana's law mandating racial segregation

on its trains unconstitutional?

Conclusion- 7-2 It is constitutional to mandate separate cars

under the 14th amendment, as long as the separate cars are
equal. Justice Brown came to the decision that segregation
does not in itself constitute unlawful discrimination.

Effect- Segregation continued, but under the pretense that

the separate accommodations were equal to each other.