New York granted Robert Fulton and Robert Livingston an exclusive license to operate steamboats in New York waters, and Aaron Ogden operated a steamboat route between New York and New Jersey under that monopoly. Thomas Gibbons ran a competing steamboat on the same route under a federal coastal licensing law. Ogden obtained an injunction in New York state court barring Gibbons from operating in New York waters. Gibbons argued that his federal license authorized the navigation and that the state-granted monopoly conflicted with Congress's power over interstate commerce.
Does Congress's power to regulate commerce among the several states permit it to override a state-created steamboat monopoly that interferes with federally licensed interstate navigation?
Commerce includes commercial intercourse, including navigation, among the states. When Congress validly exercises its Commerce Clause power, conflicting state laws must yield under the Supremacy Clause.
Yes. The Court held that navigation is part of interstate commerce, that Congress has power to regulate it, and that the New York monopoly could not be enforced against a vessel operating under a federal coasting license.
Chief Justice Marshall construed "commerce" broadly to include navigation, not merely the buying and selling of goods. He also read "among the several states" to reach interstate commercial activity that concerns more than one state, even if some aspects occur within a state's borders. Because Congress had enacted a federal licensing system for coastal trade, New York's exclusive steamboat privilege conflicted with federal law. Under the Supremacy Clause, the state monopoly had to give way.
Gibbons is a foundational Commerce Clause decision because it established a broad national power over interstate commerce and confirmed that navigation falls within that power. It also reinforced federal supremacy when valid federal commerce regulations conflict with state enactments. The case became a cornerstone for later Commerce Clause doctrine, including Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 53 U.S. 299 (1852), NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 (1937), and Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).
Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 53 U.S. 299 (1852) |
Abstain |
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 (1937) |
Verified |
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) |
Verified |
Enter a case name or citation — get a structured brief where every case it cites is checked against real law.
Try Law Student Workbench →