Gibbons Vs Ogden Case Study

Gibbons and Ogden ran competing ferry franchises and the controversy between the two was over ferry routes. Aaron Ogden was given a particular license that allowed him to operate his ferries on the Hudson River, between New York and New Jersey. His competitor, Thomas Gibbons, also ran steamboat ferries along this same route. Ogden claimed that he had a right to use the route because the state had issued him a special license to do so. “Gibbons claimed he had the right to operate on the route pursuant to a 1793 act”(McBride). The New York court ruled in favor of Ogden and told Gibbons he was no longer allowed to operate his steamboats on the Hudson River route from New York to New Jersey. In 1824 Gibbons appealed to the Supreme Court. After

To help reach this decision the court had to refer back to the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which reads "Congress shall have power to regulate commerce ... among the several States." The case of Gibbons v. Ogden greatly broaden Congressional power through an individual clause in the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s decision was ultimately made by Article I, Section 8. The Clause stated “Congress had powers to regulate any aspect of commerce that crossed state lines, including modes of transportation, and that such regulation preempted conflicting regulation by the states”(McBride).

Powell v. Alabama

The landmark case of Powell v. Alabama decided that in any capital legal trial the defendant will not be denied access to a lawyer if the defending party desires representation. All capital trial defendants have the right to a lawyer through the process

The case of Everson v. Board of Education began when New Jersey issued a state law authorized schools to make rules for transporting students to and from public and private nonprofit schools. Ewing Township made students use the public bus as school transportation, and they reimbursed the parents for the cost of transportation. Everson filed a suit against the Board of Education, arguing that tax money collected for public schools was being used to pay the families of student that attended private schools that were affiliated with various religious groups. Everson believed the Board had violated the “constitutional guarantee against the ‘establishment’ of a religion contained in the 1st Amendment” (phschool.com). In violating the guarantee of the 1st Amendment, Everson thought the Ewing Township board had also violated the guaranteed right to separation of church and state. After review, the Supreme court found that Ewing Township was not violating any laws by reimbursing parents of children who attended public or private schools and took public transportation to school. Justice Hugo Black claimed that the state provided benefits to all its citizens. One of the benefits included the reimbursement for public buses to school. The Everson decision was the first time the court had to fully acknowledge the effect that the 1st Amendment did put limits on