McCulloch v. Maryland
17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819)
Constitutional Topic Areas:
Article I §8 Clause 1 & 18, Enumerated and Implied powers
Case Facts:
After Congress created the second charter for the national bank in 1816, allegations of scandal, as well as the calling of state loans which lead to banks failing prompting congressional hearings on the matter. As a result of this, some states took it upon themselves to try and regulate or pass laws to hinder the bank from operating within their borders. In 1818, the state of Maryland imposed a $15,000 tax on any out of state bank operating within their borders—the national bank being the only one at the time. The Cashier at the Baltimore branch, James McCulloch, whom was also implicated in scandal at the bank, refused to pay the tax, setting the stage for a massive constitutional battle. When the state of Maryland sued McCulloch demanding he pay the tax, the state appeals court sided with Maryland and ruled the bank’s charter to be unconstitutional, arguing Congress lacked enumerated power to form a national bank. The suit was then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Questions:
1. Did Congress act constitutionally to form the national bank even though it lacked explicit constitutional authorization?
2. Did the state of Maryland over exceed its authority by imposing a tax on a federal entity?
Holding:
1. Yes
2. Yes
Legal Reasoning: Chief Justice J. Marshall (Unanimous)
1. Under the ‘Necessary and Proper’ clause in Article I §8, Congress has the power to make any law it deems necessary and proper to cary out any enumerated power
2. Congress’ appropriately found the charter of the national bank as necessary and proper to cary out its enumerated taxation and spending powers
3. The Constitution is something which must be interpreted by future generations of legislators, not every detail will be enumerated within the Constitution’s text
Significance:
After this ruling, the doctrine of implied powers, specifically under the necessary and proper clause, is established and remains a strong precedent. Additionally, this newfound broad interpretation of the Constitution effectively increases national power relative to state power, as well as prohibits states from interfering within Congress’ sphere of action
Reflection:
Chief Justice John Marshall’s redefinition of “necessary” within the context of the necessary and proper clause efficiently outline Congress’ powers to be anything which is “appropriate and legitimate.” This legal reasoning still stands today. Overall, McCulloch broadened the power of the federal government
Supreme Court Case Briefs 