Gibbons v. Ogden was the landmark decision which Supreme Court held that the power to regulate interstate commerce was actually granted to the Congress by Commerce Clause in Article I of the Constitution.
The Commerce Power The Interstate Commerce Clause may be found in Article I, Section 8: "...To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the State of New York's decision on this case. The Court found that the power to regulate navigation fell under the existing rules concerning interstate commerce.
The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) regulated commercial transportation between the states: railroads, trucking, shipping, air freight; basically it regulated anything that moved goods. It originally started with the growth and development of railroads during the 19th century. The railroads in general were owned by fabulously wealthy investors, since it took a vast amount of capital to lay tracks and purchase the expensive engines and cars, the "high technology" of their day. In return for vast investments, the railroads expected vast profits, and they engaged in all sorts of unsavory tactics that were unfair to their customers. The ICC was established in 1887 following a Supreme Court decision in favor of railroads that ONLY the U.S. government could regulate interstate commerce, another blow against State's Rights. The U.S. Constitution only says the following about interstate commerce, describing the power of Congress: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Everything else that has come after is the result of legislation and court decisions.
A. foreign exports B. interstate transportation C. foreign trade D. interstate licenses
Gibbons v. Ogden
Gibbons v. Ogden was the landmark decision which Supreme Court held that the power to regulate interstate commerce was actually granted to the Congress by Commerce Clause in Article I of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court held that Congress could not regulate firearms in school zones as it did not affect interstate commerce.
It was on the grounds that child labor was not interstate commerce and therefore only state could regulate it.
In Gibbons v. Ogden, (1824), the US Supreme Court held that Congress has authority to regulate interstate commerce, or business between the states, under Article I, Section 8, the Commerce Clause. The Court interpreted "interstate commerce" broadly to include most state actions that impact other states' and the national economy.Case Citation:Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 (1824)
Illinois won. The Supreme Court upheld the Granger laws, establishing as constitutional the principle of public regulation of private businesses involved in serving the public interest.
The Commerce Power The Interstate Commerce Clause may be found in Article I, Section 8: "...To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"
One example of judicial restraint is Gibbons vs. Ogden. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the power to regulate interstate commerce was granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. This is seen to be an example of judicial restraint because it restrained its power within congress to regulate interstate commerce and they were not exercising their power outside of any law or ruling. They found no violation in the Constitution from this case.
According to the Interstate Commerce Clause in Article I of the US Constitution, Congress has the sole power to regulate commerce between states. This authority was affirmed in the Supreme Court case Gibbons v. Ogden, (1824).Case Citation:Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824)
the Interstate Commerce Commission
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the State of New York's decision on this case. The Court found that the power to regulate navigation fell under the existing rules concerning interstate commerce.
The Supreme Court of the United States had jurisdiction in Gibbons v. Ogden because it made its way up the appeal process to that level. The case is significant because the Court decided that the federal government had power to regulate interstate commerce.