M'culloch v. State of Maryland
- Decided
- March 18, 1819
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 4,222 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that a state may not tax an instrumentality of the federal government properly created by Congress in pursuit of an enumerated power — United States v. Rene Martin Verdugo-Urquidez (1988)
- holding that State of Maryland could not specifically target Bank of the United States for taxation — Garden State Equality v. Dow (2013)
- holding that Congress had authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause to charter the Bank of the United States in furtherance of Congress’s enumerated powers — City of Spokane v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n (2014)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court.
In the.case now to be determined, the defendant, a sovereign State, denies the obligation of a law enacted by the legislature of the Union, and the plaintiff, on his part, contests the validity of an act which has been passed by the legislature of that State. The constitution of our country, in its most interesting and vital parts, is to be considered ; the conflicting powers of the government of the Union and of its members, as marked in that constitution, are to be discussed; and an opinion given, which may essentially influence the great operations of the government. No tribunal can approach such a question without a deep sense of its importance, and of the awful responsibility involved in its decision. But it must be decided peacefully, or remain a source of [*401] hostile legislation, perhaps of hostility of a still more Serious nature; and if it is to be so decided, by this tribunal alone can the decision be made. On the Supreme Court of the United States has the constitution of our country devolved this important duty..
The first question made in the cause is, has Congress power to incorporate a bahli ? > It has.been truly said, that this can scarcely be considered as an open question, entirely unprejudiced by the former proceedings of the nation respecting it. The principle now contested wás introduced at a very early period óf our history, has been recognised by many successive legislatures, ahd has been acted upon by the judicial departmept, in cases of peculiar delicacy, as a law of undoubted obligation.
Cite this
M'culloch v. State of Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.