-
John Jay
Jay was a former president of the Continental Congress and was appointed to be the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by George Washington. Later he became the governor of New York and was nominated by John Adams as Chief Justice a second time, but declined. He was significant because he was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and set the standard for future Chief Justices. -
Creation of the Supreme Court
The structure of the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary were mentioned in the Judiciary Act of 1789. 13 federal district courts were to be located in major cities and 3 circuit courts in other areas of the United States. Above these is the Supreme Court, the only court of appeals, which includes a Chief Justice and Associate Justices. The significance is that the Supreme Court showed it's power and authority to the people, which increased order in the country and is still important today. -
John Marshall
Marshall, a Revolutionary War veteran, is one of the most famous Chief Justices and served for 34 years, having the longest tenure. He was appointed by John Adams and held his position through Jefferson's inauguration. Before serving as Chief Justice, he turned down political opportunities in order to do his own private law practice. He was significant becuase through court cases, he helped show the citizens that the Supreme Court was the final authority on the meaning of the Constitution. -
Marbury v. Madison
William Marbury was appointed as justice of the peace for D.C. by Adams. However, when James Madison became secretary of state, under Jefferson's instructions, he did not deliver the undelivered commissions, including Marbury's, so he sued Madison. This case is significant becuase the doctrine of judicial review and the Supreme Court's power to interpret the Constituion was established. -
Fletcher v. Peck
The justices opposed a Georgia law that abolished a land grant that some speculators had acquired by bribing the legisature. However, Marshall declared that a grant was a contract and the legistlature could not interfere with a grant once it had been established. The significance of this case was that it shows Marshall's belief in protecting private property and it greatly expanded the contract clause by not distinguishing between public and private agreements. -
Dartmouth College v. Woodward
The legislature of New Hampshire attempted to alter the college's charter that was granted by George III in 1769. The Court stated that charters are also contracts and later legistlatures cannot alter them. Through this trial, Marshall emphasized the contract clause (to protect property and contracts) and limit state interference with businesses. This resulted in an expansion of the economy because there was more confidence in business and the number of corporations increased. -
McCulloch v. Maryland
In this case, the constitutionality of the Second Bank of the US was upheld. Congress argued that a bank would help maintain public credit, regulate currency, and help meet other responsibilities. This case is significant because it emphasized the fact that the Constitution says that Congress was allowed to make 'necessary and proper' laws for delegated powers. -
Gibbons v. Ogden
Aaron Ogden was granted, by the state of New York, a monopoly on steamboat traffic on the Hudson River. Thomas Gibbons had a federal license to operate a steamboat, but was sued by Ogden because he did not have permission to be in the Hudson River. This case was significant becuase it established that the federal government (Congress) had the right to regulate interstate commerce. This also increased business competition throughout the society. -
Worcester v. Georgia
In this case, Georgia tried to pass a law that regulated activities within the Cherokee Nation, but John Marshall ruled that they had no legal authority to extend its laws over Cherokee territory. The significance of this case was that it was one of the cases that established the political standings of Indian tribes in the US. This reaffirmed tribal sovereignty and that states did not have the right to regulate activities of tribes. But, Jackson ignored the edict and planned for removal anyway. -
Dred Scott v. Sandford
Dred Scott, a Missouri slave, lived in the free territory of Wisconsion for 2 years and later returned to Missouri. He argued that living on free soil made him a free citizen. The court decided against Scott. This case is significant because it showed that the Missouri Compromise and popular sovereignty were unconstitutional. The northerners were suspicious of a slave power conspiracy, but the southerners were delighted with the ruling, making this an event that contributed to disunion as well.
