McCulloch v. Maryland

(Redirected from McCulloch v Maryland)

Page version status

This is an accepted version of this page

This is the latest accepted revision, reviewed on 25 October 2024.

1819 United States Supreme Court case

McCulloch v. Maryland
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 21 – March 3, 1819 Decided March 6, 1819
Full case name	James McCulloch v. The State of Maryland, John James
Citations	17 U.S. 316 (more)4 Wheat. 316; 4 L. Ed. 579; 1819 U.S. LEXIS 320; 4 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 4491; 42 Cont. Cas. Fed. (CCH) ¶ 77,296
Case history
Prior	Judgment for John James, Baltimore County Court; affirmed, Maryland Court of Appeals
Subsequent	None
Holding
Although the Constitution does not specifically give Congress the power to establish a bank, it delegates the ability to tax and spend. Because a bank is a proper and suitable instrument to assist the operations of the government in the collection and disbursement of the revenue, and because federal laws are supreme over state laws, Maryland had no power to interfere with the bank's operation by taxing it. Maryland Court of Appeals reversed.
Court membership
Chief Justice John Marshall Associate Justices Bushrod Washington · William Johnson H. Brockholst Livingston · Thomas Todd Gabriel Duvall · Joseph Story
Case opinion
Majority	Marshall, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1, 18

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that defined the scope of the U.S. Congress's legislative power and how it relates to the powers of American state legislatures. The dispute in McCulloch involved the legality of the national bank and a tax that the state of Maryland imposed on it. In its ruling, the Supreme Court established firstly that the "Necessary and Proper" Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives the U.S. federal government certain implied powers necessary and proper for the exercise of the powers enumerated explicitly in the Constitution, and secondly that the American federal government is supreme over the states, and so states' ability to interfere with the federal government is restricted. Since the legislature has the authority to tax and spend, the court held that it therefore has authority to establish a national bank, as being "necessary and proper" to that end.

The state of Maryland had attempted to impede an operation by the Second Bank of the United States through a tax on all notes of banks not chartered in Maryland. Though the law, by its language, was generally applicable to all banks not chartered in Maryland, the Second Bank of the United States was the only out-of-state bank then existing in Maryland, and the law was thus recognized in the court's opinion as having specifically targeted the Bank of the United States. The Court invoked the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, which allows the federal government to pass laws not expressly provided for in the Constitution's list of enumerated powers of Congress if such laws are necessary and proper to further the powers expressly authorized.

McCulloch has been described as "the most important Supreme Court decision in American history defining the scope of Congress's powers and delineating the relationship between the federal government and the states." The case established two important principles in constitutional law. First, the Constitution grants to Congress implied powers to implement the Constitution's express powers to create a functional national government. Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in McCulloch, the scope of the U.S. government's authority was unclear. Second, state action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the federal government.

Background

Almost immediately after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788, a major public debate arose over whether to establish a national bank for the United States. Upon George Washington's inauguration in 1789 as the first President of the United States, his Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, proposed creating a national bank to regulate American currency and deal with national economic problems. Washington's Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, strongly opposed the bank's creation, fearing it would usurp power from the individual states and concentrate it to a dangerous degree in the central federal government. Congress created the First Bank of the United States in 1791 with a 20-year charter, but the issue continued to be controversial. Those who supported Hamilton's vision of a stronger central government eventually formed the Federalist Party, while those who opposed him and supported Jefferson's vision of a decentralized government that focused on states' rights formed the Democratic-Republican Party.

The First Bank's charter expired in 1811 and was not renewed. However, national economic problems in the aftermath of the War of 1812 prompted Congress to pass similar legislation in 1816 to create the Second Bank of the United States. The U.S. government only owned 20 percent of the bank's equity, and many state governments resented the bank for calling in loans it had made to them. Consequently, some states passed laws designed to hinder the bank's operation, while others simply tried to tax it. In 1818, the Maryland General Assembly—Maryland's state legislature—passed a law levying a $15,000 annual tax on any bank operating in Maryland that was issuing notes and bills that were not properly stamped by Maryland's Treasury, the Western Shore Treasury.

James William McCulloh, a cashier of the Baltimore Branch of the Second Bank of the United States, issued unstamped bank notes to Baltimore resident George Williams. The lawsuit was filed by John James, an informer who sought to collect half of the fine, as provided for by the statute. The Bank was represented by Daniel Webster. The case was appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals, where the state of Maryland argued that "the Constitution is silent on the subject of banks." It was Maryland's contention that without specific constitutional authorization for the federal government to create a bank, any such creation would be rendered unconstitutional.

The court upheld Maryland. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision

The Court determined that Congress had the power to create the Bank. Chief Justice Marshall supported his conclusion with four main arguments:

Firstly, he argued that historical practice established Congress's power to create the bank. Marshall invoked the creation of the First Bank of the United States in 1791 as authority for the constitutionality of the second bank. The first Congress had enacted the bank after great debate, and it was approved by an executive "with as much persevering talent as any measure has ever experienced, and being supported by arguments which convinced minds as pure and as intelligent as this country can boast."

Secondly, Marshall rebutted the argument that states retain ultimate sovereignty because they ratified the constitution: "The powers of the general government, it has been said, are delegated by the states, who alone are truly sovereign; and must be exercised in subordination to the states, who alone possess supreme dominion." Marshall contended that it was the people who ratified the Constitution and thus the people, not the states, who are sovereign.

Thirdly, Marshall addressed the scope of congressional powers under Article I. The Court broadly described Congress's authority before it addressed the Necessary and Proper Clause. Marshall admitted that the Constitution does not enumerate a power to create a central Bank but said that is not dispositive as to Congress's power to establish such an institution: "In considering this question, then, we must never forget, that it is a constitution we are expounding."

Fourthly, Marshall supported his opinion textually by invoking the Necessary and Proper Clause, which permits Congress to seek an objective while it exercised its enumerated powers as long as that objective is not forbidden by the Constitution. In liberally interpreting the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Court rejected Maryland's narrow interpretation of the clause that the word "necessary" in the clause meant that Congress could pass only laws that were absolutely essential in the execution of its enumerated powers. The Court rejected that argument, on the grounds that many of the enumerated powers of Congress under the Constitution would be useless if only laws deemed essential to a power's execution could be passed. Marshall also noted that the Necessary and Proper Clause is listed within the powers of Congress, not its limitations.

The Court held that the word "necessary" in the Necessary and Proper Clause does not refer therefore to the only way of doing something but applies to various procedures for implementing all constitutionally-established powers: "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are Constitutional."

That principle had been established many years earlier by Alexander Hamilton:

criterion of what is constitutional, and of what is not so ... is the end, to which the measure relates as a mean. If the end be clearly comprehended within any of the specified powers, and if the measure have an obvious relation to that end, and is not forbidden by any particular provision of the Constitution, it may safely be deemed to come within the compass of the national authority. There is also this further criterion which may materially assist the decision: Does the proposed measure abridge a pre-existing right of any State, or of any individual? If it does not, there is a strong presumption in favour of its constitutionality. ...

Chief Justice Marshall also determined that Maryland could not tax the bank without violating the constitution since, as Marshall commented, "the power to tax involves the power to destroy". The Court thus struck down the tax as an unconstitutional attempt by a state to interfere with a federal institution, in violation of the Supremacy Clause.

The opinion stated that Congress has implied powers, which must be related to the text of the Constitution but do not need to be enumerated within the text.

Significance

The case was a seminal moment in federalism: the formation of a balance between federal powers and state powers. Marshall also explained in the case that the Necessary and Proper Clause does not require all federal laws to be necessary and proper and that federal laws that are enacted directly pursuant to one of the expressed, enumerated powers granted by the Constitution do not need to comply with the Necessary and Proper Clause, which "purport to enlarge, not to diminish the powers vested in the government. It purports to be an additional power, not a restriction on those already granted."

Criticism

Though Marshall rejected the Tenth Amendment's provision of states' rights arguing that it did not include the word "expressly," unlike the Articles of Confederation, which the Constitution replaced, controversy over the authority of the amendment being violated by the decision has existed. Compact theory also argues that the federal government is a creation of the states and that the states maintain superiority. Unlike Marshall, his successor, Roger B. Taney, established dual federalism by which separate-but-equal branches of government are believed to be a better option.

Later history

McCulloch v. Maryland was cited in the first substantial constitutional case presented before the High Court of Australia in D'Emden v Pedder (1904), which dealt with similar issues in the Australian Federation. While recognizing American law as not binding on them, the Australian Court nevertheless determined that the McCulloch decision provided the best guideline for the relationship between the Commonwealth federal government, and the Australian states, owing in large part to strong similarities between the American and Australian constitutions.

References

Explanatory footnotes

^ In the original report of the case, its name is styled M‘Culloch v. The State of Maryland et al., which has led many sources to refer to the case as M'Culloch v. Maryland. However, 18th- and early 19th-century printers often used an upside-down or "turned" comma to represent a superscript lowercase "c" after a capital "M"; in other words, they used M‘ to represent M. The original reporter of the case, Henry Wheaton, almost certainly used M'Culloch to indicate McCulloch. Today, many casebooks and legal treatises have accordingly updated "M'Culloch to "McCulloch".
The case refers to him as "McCulloch" because the court clerk misspelled his name.

Citations

Barnett & Blackman (2018), p. 116, note 4.
Collins (2009), p. 265.
^ Nowak & Rotunda (2010), p. 141.
Chemerinsky (2015), pp. 248.
Chemerinsky, Erwin (2017). Constitutional Law (5th ed.). New York: Aspen Casebook Series. p. 116. ISBN 978-1454876472.
^ Nowak & Rotunda (2010), § 3.2, p. 142.
^ Chemerinsky (2015), p. 242.
^ "Archives of Maryland, Volume 0636, Page 0173 - Session Laws, 1817". January 24, 2022. Archived from the original on January 24, 2022. Retrieved January 24, 2022.
Schwartz 2019, p. 46.
"M'CULLOCH v. STATE OF MARYLAND et al. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute". January 19, 2022. Archived from the original on January 19, 2022. Retrieved January 24, 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
^ Chemerinsky, Erwin (2006). Constitutional Law Principles and Policies (3rd ed.). New York: Aspen Publishers. ISBN 978-0-7355-5787-1.
17 U.S. at 401.
17 U.S. at 402.
17 U.S. at 408.
17 U.S. at 421
Kurland, Philip B.; Lerner, Ralph, eds. (1987). "Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18". The Founders' Constitution. ISBN 978-0-226-46387-2. Retrieved October 20, 2011.
Schwartz, Bernard (1978). "National League of Cities v. Usery--The Commerce Power and State Sovereignty". Fordham Law Review. 46: 1115.
"Bill of Rights Institute: Landmark Supreme Court Cases – McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)". Bill of Rights Institute.
Justin D. Lowry (February 24, 2009). "10th Amendment: History and Purpose". Tenth Amendment Center.

Works cited

Barnett, Randy E.; Blackman, Josh (2018). Constitutional Law: Cases in Context. Aspen Casebook Series (3rd ed.). New York: Wolters Kluwer. ISBN 978-1-4548-9288-5.
Chemerinsky, Erwin (2015). Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (5th ed.). New York: Wolters Kluwer. ISBN 978-1-4548-4947-6.
Collins, Michael G. (2009). "M'Culloch and the Turned Comma" (PDF). Green Bag. 2nd. 12: 265–75.
McCloskey, Robert G.; Levinson, Sanford (2010). The American Supreme Court (5th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-55686-4.
Nowak, John E.; Rotunda, Ronald (2010). Constitutional Law (8th ed.). St. Paul: Thomson West. ISBN 978-0-314-19599-9.
Schwartz, David S. (2019). The Spirit of the Constitution: John Marshall and the 200-Year Odyssey of McCulloch v. Maryland. Oxford University Press. p. 46. ISBN 9780190699505.

External links

Works related to McCulloch v. Maryland at Wikisource
Text of McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress OpenJurist
Minutes from the Court's Discussion of the Case
"McCulloch v. Maryland - Case Brief". Lawnix.com. Archived from the original on January 22, 2009.
The short film McCulloch v. Maryland (1977) is available for free viewing and download at the Internet Archive.
"Supreme Court Landmark Case McCulloch v. Maryland" from C-SPAN's Landmark Cases: Historic Supreme Court Decisions

U.S. Supreme Court Article I case law

Enumeration Clause of Section II
Utah v. Evans (2002) Department of Commerce v. New York (2019) Trump v. New York (2020)

Qualifications Clauses of Sections II and III
Powell v. McCormack (1969) U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995) Cook v. Gralike (2001)

Elections Clause of Section IV
Ex parte Siebold (1879) Smiley v. Holm (1932) U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995) Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015) Moore v. Harper (2023)

Speech or Debate Clause of Section VI
Kilbourn v. Thompson (1881) United States v. Johnson (1966) Gravel v. United States (1972)

Origination Clause of Section VII
Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. (1911) United States v. Munoz-Flores (1990)

Presentment Clause of Section VII
Pocket Veto Case (1929) Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha (1983) Clinton v. City of New York (1998)

Taxing and Spending Clause of Section VIII

Hylton v. United States (1796)
Collector v. Day (1871)
Springer v. United States (1881)
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895)
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (1916)
Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. (1922)
United States v. Butler (1936)
Helvering v. Davis (1937)
South Dakota v. Dole (1987)
Sabri v. United States (2004)
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)

Commerce Clause of Section VIII

Dormant Commerce Clause

Brown v. Maryland (1827)
Willson v. Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co. (1829)
Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1852)
Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois (1886)
Swift & Co. v. United States (1905)
George W. Bush & Sons Co. v. Malloy (1925)
Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc. (1935)
Edwards v. California (1941)
Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona (1945)
Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison (1951)
Miller Bros. Co. v. Maryland (1954)
Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. (1959)
National Bellas Hess v. Illinois (1967)
Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. (1970)
Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp. (1976)
Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady (1977)
Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission (1977)
City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey (1978)
Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland (1978)
Reeves, Inc. v. Stake (1980)
Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. (1981)
Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas (1982)
White v. Mass. Council of Construction Employers (1983)
South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke (1984)
Maine v. Taylor (1986)
Healy v. Beer Institute, Inc. (1989)
Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992)
Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt (1992)
Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Oregon (1994)
C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown (1994)
West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy (1994)
Granholm v. Heald (2005)
United Haulers Ass'n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority (2007)
Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis (2008)
Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne (2015)
South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (2018)
Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas (2019)
National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (2023)

Others

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
Passenger Cases (1849)
Paul v. Virginia (1869)
Cooper Manufacturing Co. v. Ferguson (1885)
Kidd v. Pearson (1888)
In re Debs (1895)
United States v. E. C. Knight Co. (1895)
Champion v. Ames (1903)
Southern Railway Co. v. United States (1911)
Hoke v. United States (1913)
Houston East & West Texas Railway Co. v. United States (1914)
Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)
Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. Olsen (1923)
A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935)
Gold Clause Cases (1935)
Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (1935)
Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936)
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937)
United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938)
McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co. (1940)
United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941)
United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co. (1942)
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n (1944)
North American Co. v. SEC (1946)
H.P. Hood & Sons v. Du Mond (1949)
Henderson v. United States (1950)
Canton Railroad Co. v. Rogan (1951)
Boynton v. Virginia (1960)
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964)
Katzenbach v. McClung (1964)
Maryland v. Wirtz (1968)
National League of Cities v. Usery (1976)
Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Association, Inc. (1981)
Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana (1981)
EEOC v. Wyoming (1983)
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985)
New York v. United States (1992)
United States v. Lopez (1995)
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996)
Reno v. Condon (2000)
United States v. Locke (2000)
Jones v. United States (2000)
United States v. Morrison (2000)
Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)
Taylor v. United States (2016)

Coinage Clause of Section VIII

Legal Tender Cases	Knox v. Lee (1871) Juilliard v. Greenman (1884)

Copyright Act of 1790	Wheaton v. Peters (1834) Paige v. Banks (1872) Globe Newspaper Co. v. Walker (1908)
Patent Act of 1793	Tyler v. Tuel (1810) Evans v. Eaton (1818) Evans v. Eaton (1822) Evans v. Hettich (1822)
Patent infringement case law	Evans v. Jordan (1815) Hollister v. Benedict & Burnham Manufacturing Co. (1885) Rowell v. Lindsay (1885) Schillinger v. United States (1894) Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell (1913) General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co. (1938)
Patentability case law	Pennock v. Dialogue (1829) Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (1851) O'Reilly v. Morse (1853) Cochrane v. Deener (1876) City of Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Co. (1878) Egbert v. Lippmann (1881) Consolidated Safety-Valve Co. v. Crosby Steam Gauge & Valve Co. (1885) Voss v. Fisher (1885)
Copyright Act of 1831	Wheaton v. Peters (1834) Backus v. Gould (1849) Stephens v. Cady (1853) Stevens v. Gladding (1854) Little v. Hall (1856) Paige v. Banks (1872) Baker v. Selden (1879) Callaghan v. Myers (1888) Higgins v. Keuffel (1891) Holmes v. Hurst (1899) Brady v. Daly (1899) Bolles v. Outing Co. (1899) Mifflin v. R. H. White Company (1903) Mifflin v. Dutton (1903)
Copyright Act of 1870	Perris v. Hexamer (1879) Trade-Mark Cases (1879) Merrell v. Tice (1881) Schreiber v. Sharpless (1884) Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony (1884) Thornton v. Schreiber (1888) Banks v. Manchester (1888) Callaghan v. Myers (1888) Thompson v. Hubbard (1889) Higgins v. Keuffel (1891) Belford v. Scribner (1892) Brady v. Daly (1899) Bolles v. Outing Co. (1899) Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co. (1903) McLoughlin v. Raphael Tuck & Sons Co. (1903) American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister (1907) Werckmeister v. American Tobacco Co. (1907) United Dictionary Co. v. G. & C. Merriam Co. (1907) White-Smith Music Publishing Co. v. Apollo Co. (1908) Dun v. Lumbermen's Credit Ass'n (1908) Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus (1908) Scribner v. Straus (1908) Bong v. Campbell Art Co. (1909) Henry v. A.B. Dick Co. (1912)
Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890	Straus v. American Publishers Association (1913) Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States (1939) Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC (1941) United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. (1948) Broadcast Music, Inc. v. CBS Inc. (1979)
International Copyright Act of 1891	Press Pub. Co. v. Monroe (1896) McLoughlin v. Raphael Tuck & Sons Co. (1903) American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister (1907) White-Smith Music Publishing Co. v. Apollo Co. (1908) Globe Newspaper Co. v. Walker (1908) Bong v. Campbell Art Co. (1909) Caliga v. Inter Ocean Newspaper Co. (1909) Hills and Co. v. Hoover (1911) Kalem Co. v. Harper Bros. (1911)
Copyright Act of 1909	Hills and Co. v. Hoover (1911) DeJonge and Co. v. Breuker & Kessler Co. (1914) Herbert v. Shanley Co. (1917) Manners v. Morosco (1920) Fox Film Corp. v. Knowles (1923) Buck v. Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co. (1931) Douglas v. Cunningham (1935) Washingtonian Pub. Co. v. Pearson (1939) Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp. (1940) Fred Fisher Music Co. v. M. Witmark & Sons (1943) F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc. (1952) Mazer v. Stein (1954) De Sylva v. Ballentine (1956) Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. (1964) Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States (1973)
Patent misuse case law	Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Manufacturing Co. (1917) Morton Salt Co. v. G.S. Suppiger Co. (1942)
Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914	Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC (1941) Dowling v. United States (1985)
Lanham Act	Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. (1982) San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee (1987) Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. (1992) Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. (1995) College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board (1999) Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. (2001) TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. (2001) Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. (2003) Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. (2003) Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (2014) POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. (2014) Matal v. Tam (2017) Iancu v. Brunetti (2019) Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. (2020)
Copyright Act of 1976	Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. (1977) Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (1984) Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder (1985) Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises (1985) Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid (1989) Stewart v. Abend (1990) Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (1991) Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. (1994) Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994) Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc. (1996) Quality King Distributors Inc., v. L'anza Research International Inc. (1998) Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. (1998) New York Times Co. v. Tasini (2001) Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003) MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. (2005) Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick (2010) Golan v. Holder (2012) Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (2013) Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. (2014) American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. (2014) Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. (2017) Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com (2019) Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. (2019) Allen v. Cooper (2020) Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (2020)
Other copyright cases	American Lithographic Co. v. Werkmeister (1911) Ferris v. Frohman (1912) Order of St. Benedict of New Jersey v. Steinhauser (1914) International News Service v. Associated Press (1918) L. A. Westermann Co. v. Dispatch Printing Co. (1919) Lumiere v. Mae Edna Wilder, Inc. (1923) Educational Films Corp. v. Ward (1931) Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal (1932) George v. Victor Talking Machine Co. (1934) KVOS v. Associated Press (1936) Gibbs v. Buck (1939) Buck v. Gallagher (1939) Commissioner v. Wodehouse (1949) Miller Music Corp. v. Charles N. Daniels, Inc. (1960) Pub. Affairs Associates, Inc. v. Rickover (1962) Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc. (1968) Goldstein v. California (1973) Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting (1974) Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken (1975)
Other patent cases	Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co. (1908) Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde (1916) United States v. General Electric Co. (1926) United States v. Univis Lens Co. (1942) Altvater v. Freeman (1943) Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. (1945) Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. (1948) Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. (1950) Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. (1950) Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. (1961) Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. (1964) Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther (1964) Brulotte v. Thys Co. (1964) Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp. (1965) Graham v. John Deere Co. (1966) United States v. Adams (1966) Brenner v. Manson (1966) Lear, Inc. v. Adkins (1969) Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. (1969) Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. (1971) Gottschalk v. Benson (1972) United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd. (1973) Dann v. Johnston (1976) Sakraida v. Ag Pro Inc. (1976) Parker v. Flook (1978) Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980) Diamond v. Diehr (1981) Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. (1989) Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc. (1990) Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (1996) Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. (1997) Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. (1998) Dickinson v. Zurko (1999) Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank (1999) J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (2001) Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. (2002) Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. (2005) eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. (2006) Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. (2006) LabCorp v. Metabolite, Inc. (2006) MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (2007) KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (2007) Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. (2007) Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (2008) Bilski v. Kappos (2010) Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. (2011) Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. (2011) Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership (2011) Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (2012) Kappos v. Hyatt (2012) Bowman v. Monsanto Co. (2013) Gunn v. Minton (2013) Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (2013) FTC v. Actavis, Inc. (2013) Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014) Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (2014) Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (2015) Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC (2015) Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (2016) TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC (2017) Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. (2019)
Other trademark cases	G. & C. Merriam Co. v. Syndicate Pub. Co. (1915) Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. (1938) Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B. V. (2020)

Necessary and Proper Clause of Section VIII
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) Lambert v. Yellowley (1926) Sabri v. United States (2004) Gonzales v. Raich (2005) United States v. Comstock (2010) United States v. Kebodeaux (2013)

Habeas corpus Suspension Clause of Section IX
Ex parte Bollman (1807) Ex parte Merryman (1861) Ex parte Endo (1944) Immigration and Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr (2001) Boumediene v. Bush (2008) Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam (2020)

No Bills of Attainder or Ex post facto Laws Clause of Section IX
Calder v. Bull (1798) Sturges v. Crowninshield (1819) Ex parte Garland (1866) Hawker v. New York (1898) Samuels v. McCurdy (1925) Garner v. Board of Public Works (1951) De Veau v. Braisted (1960) Barr v. City of Columbia (1964) Teague v. Lane (1989) Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) Smith v. Doe (2003)

Contract Clause of Section X

Legal Tender Cases

Hepburn v. Griswold (1870)