McCulloch v Maryland (1819)

Dissenting Opinion

Unanimous opinion authorized by Chief Justice John Marshall

Facts of the Case

*Maryland passed a law that forced the Second Bank of the United States of America to pay annual tax - attempted to close the Baltimore branch *James McCulloch: chief administrative officer of the Baltimore branch - Refused to pay tax *Maryland sued McCulloch for the state claimed they had the power to tax any business residing in their state. Also claimed that the Constitution does not outline that the government, particularly congress, can institute a national bank. *Went to the Maryland Court of Appeals and ruled in favor of Maryland -McCulloch claimed that the establishment of a national bank is necessary and proper - one of congress' implied powers *James McCulloch appealed again and the Supreme Court picked up the case *1816, Congress creates Second Bank of U.S.; 1st charter expired *bank = help conduct business of gov't (ie-collect taxes) *Bank HQ = Philadelphia *1817, Maryland branch opens *Maryland state leg. passed tax of $15,000/year on bank *James McCulloch, cashier, refuses to pay *Maryland Court of Appeals = bak is unconstitutional *McCulloch appeals to SCOTUS

Majority Opinion

*States had the power of taxation, but the federal government has the power to make new laws. *"Although, among the enumerated powers of government, we do not find the word "bank" or "incorporation," we find the great powers to lay and collect taxes; to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to declare and conduct a war, and to raise and support armies and navies . . . But it may with great reason be contended, that a government, entrusted with such ample powers . . . must also be entrusted with ample means for their execution. The power being given, it is the interest of the nation to facilitate its execution." - Chief Justice John Marshall -Claims that a national bank does not give new powers to congress, powers of congress such as collecting taxes and coining money will be conducted through a national bank.

Constitutional Question

Does Congress have the authority to charter a bank? Is the establishment of a national bank apart of the necessary and proper clause and is it included in Congress' implied powers?

Argument for the Plaintiff (McColluch)

The establishment of a national bank is considered one of Congress' implied powers, and therefore the branch should not be taxed if it is under federal ownership. Nothing in the constitution prohibits this establishment. The Necessary and Proper clause allows Congress to make laws that they see fit. A national bank will positively impact the U.S. If Congress were to have this power, states could not interfere.

Argument for the Defense (Maryland)

The establishment of the bank is not outlined in the Constitution. Constitution addresses that any powers not delegated to the federal constitution are delegated to the states.

Ruling of the Court

The result was a unanimous ruling of 6-0 in favor of McCulloch. Determined that Congress had the power to establish a national bank under the constitution. The constitution does not stop congress from making laws as they see fit, this is allowed under the Necessary and Proper Clause. *creates implied powers doctrine *validates "necessary and proper" clause *validates Supremacy Clause