*Gibbons+v.+Odgen

__**Year the case was heard by the Supreme Court:**__
March 2, 1824 1/1

**__Summary of the case__:**
In 1808 COMMA two men obtained a monopoly YOU DON'T OBTAIN A MONOPOLY to operate steamboats on New York waters. Robert Fulton and Robert Livingston obtained this monopoly from the New York legislature. From this monopoly duo, Aaron Ogden NO COMMA was granted an allowance to run a business that transported goods and people between New York and NeJersey PROOF READ!!! using steamboats. This was okay until Ogden sued a rival operator, Thomas Gibbons. Gibbons CLAIMED HE had the right to operate in that area under the 1793 Act of Congress COMMA which gave him a federal coasting license. Ogden first brought his complaint to the Court of Chancery of New York. He wanted the court to stop Gibbons from operating his steamboat service. The court found in favor of Ogden and said that Gibbons was to stop. After that ruling, Gibbons, thinking he was wronged, appealed his case to the Court of Errors of New York, but they agreed with the first court. These New York courts said that the issue at hand was not commerce but navigation, and that the Congress had no control over state navigation, therefore it was the states' duty to decide the laws of navigation and the case. Gibbons, still not satisfied, appealed again to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court believed that navigation was a tool the helped improve and expand commerce. The Supreme Court reversed the previous decision because the Supreme Court said the Constitution only gave power to regulate interstate commerce to Congress, not the states. DON'T DISUCSS THE RULING YET 4/5 PROOF READ FOR MISTAKES AND TRY TO SIMPLIFY THE CASE

**__Constitutional/Legal Issue__:**
The legal issue that the Supreme CourtED address was the one between what states are allowed to do regarding other states and themselves, and the abilities of the Congress given by the Constitution. In this case COMMA the argument was between federal Acts given to citizens and New York law. IT IS CONFUSING THE WAY YOUR ARE WORDING THIS Indirectly involved was New Jersey, who Gibbons operated with, along with New York. In the end COMMA the Supreme Court decided that federal laws had the only say on interstate disputes. Before the Supreme Court got to that decision IT t looked at the Constitution to help them clarify what powers they had. In the Constitution they might have looked at the specifics of their expressed power to regulate foreign and interstate trade commerce, the Supremacy Clause(Article VI), Article IV(states respect each others decisions and laws), and Article 1 section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. LA VERY CONFUSING - NEED TO WORK ON BEING CLEARER IN YOUR WRITING SIMPLY STATE THAT IT INVOLVED THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE 4/5

LABEL THE PICTURES 1.5/2

**__Decision or Holding__:**
The Supreme Court decided that the Gibbons federal Act could not be affected by the New York state laws and therefore Gibbons was allowed to continue his business between the two states without interference with the law. The vote was unanimous COMMA which shows that all the judges were united in the decision that Congress should have more power in commerce. An important outcome of this case was the opportunity to get familiar with the topic of commerce and Congresses role in it. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

THE COURT SAID THAT ONLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COULD REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE!!!

4NH/5

**__Significance__:**
//Gibbons v. Ogden// is a significant case because it was the first case ever to go to the Supreme Court under the Commerce Clause of Article I section 8 in the U.S. Constitution. Also the ruling of this case made the importance of commerce between states and of any opportunities that might enable commerce between states. Gibbons v. Ogden opened up a practical arena of steamboat companies throughout the U.S. and helped increase travel and commerce in the U.S. When new technologies developed such as telephones, oil, etc, they had to check with this court case to make sure that they had protection that was needed to move across state boarders. So when questions still arise in the world today referring to commerce this is the case that the Supreme Court looks to.

SUPREMACY IS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT - THIS CASE HELPED STRENGTHEN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

4/5

**__Bibliography__:**
(2007, July 12). //Gibbons v. ogden (1824)-background summary and questions//. Retrieved from http://www.landmarkcases.org/gibbons/background3.html

(2007, July 12). //Gibbons v. ogden (1824)-diagram of how the case moved through the court system//. Retrieved from http://www.landmarkcases.org/gibbons/background3.html

Net Industry and its Liscensors, Initials. (2009). //Gibbons v. ogden//. Retrieved from http://law.jrank.org/pages/13617/Gibbons-v-Ogden.html

(Photographer). (2007). //Gibbons// [Web]. Retrieved from http://www.landmarkcases.org/gibbons/background3.html

(Photographer). (2007). //Ogden// [Web]. Retrieved from http://www.landmarkcases.org/gibbons/background3.html

2/2

21/25 = 84% (C+) YOU INCLUDE ALL THE REQUIRED PARTS AND GIVE A LOT OF DETAIL, BUT THE WRITING IS OFTEN UNCLEAR AND CONFUSING FOR THE READER. ALSO, YOU ARE MISSING THE MAIN REASON WHY THE CASE IS SIGNIFICANT AND ARE A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT THE CASE IN SOME PART S