Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
United States v. E.C. Knight Company (1895)

The fundamental question is whether, conceding that the existence of a monopoly in manufacture is established by the evidence, that monopoly can be directly suppressed under the act of Congress in the mode attempted by this bill.

It cannot be denied that the power of a State to protect the lives, health, and property of its citizens, and to preserve good order and the public morals, "the power to govern men and things within the limits of its dominion," is a power originally and always belonging to the States, not surrendered by them to the general government. . . . The relief of the citizens of each State from the burden of monopoly and the evils resulting from the restraint of trade among such citizens was left with the States to deal with . . . On the other hand, the power of Congress to regulate commerce among the several States is also exclusive. . . . That which belongs to commerce is within the jurisdiction of the United States, but that which does not belong to commerce is within the jurisdiction of the police power of the State.

. . . Doubtless the power to control the manufacture of a given thing involves in a certain sense the control of its disposition, but this is a secondary and not the primary sense . . . Commerce succeeds manufacture, and is not a part of it. . . .

Contracts to buy, sell, or exchange goods to be transported among the several States, the transportation and its instrumentalities, and articles bought, sold, or exchanged for the purposes of such transit among the States, or put in the way of transit, may be regulated, but this is because they form part of interstate trade or commerce. The fact that an article is manufactured for export to another state does not of itself make it an article of interstate commerce. . . .

. . . There was nothing in the proofs to indicate any intention to put a restraint upon trade or commerce, and the fact, as we have seen, that trade or commere might be indirectly affected, was not enough to entitle complainants [United States] to a decree [to cancel the sugar refiner's agreements].

Has the Court's decision in this case increased Congress's power or held it in check?

<< back to question

Resources
About landmarkcases.org
 
Teaching Recommendations
Based on Your Time

 
Background Summary
and Questions

• • •
Reading Level
• •
Reading Level
 •
Reading Level
 
Diagram of How the Case Moved Through the Court System
 
Key Excerpts From the Opinion
 
Full Text of the Opinion

back to top

Activities
    The Case
Classifying Arguments in the Case

back to top

    After the Case
What Does that Law Have to Do with Interstate Commerce?
 
How Interpretation of the Commerce Power Has Changed over Time
 
Modern Debate over the Commerce Clause: The Case of U.S. v. Lopez (1995)
 
Chief Justice John Marshall's Legacy

back to top

Back to top


  FindLaw  
 

LEGAL WEB AND DATABASE SEARCH