gibbons vs ogden greatly expanded federal power in 1819 when john marshall wrote the court's opinion in this landmark case this case interpreted the commerce clause in article 1 of the constitution which states quote congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and with the indian tribes close quote why did the constitution give congress this power a few years ago when california was facing a horrific budget deficit a caller on a local radio show suggested that with our teaming ports in long beach los angeles and san francisco california needed to simply tax goods on their journey from foreign ports to interior states if this caller had known his history he would have known that was precisely what some states did to other states under the articles of confederation that preceded the constitution those who wrote our constitution did not believe it was right for some citizens to profit at the expense of other citizens on the basis of geography as goods in commerce traversed over land and route to interior states can you imagine how much the people of kansas city would pay for goods that is shipped to them by train from the coast for example if taxes had to be paid as that train pass through each state here are the facts in gibbons in 1798 the new york legislature granted robert livingstone a charter that gave him a monopoly or the exclusive right to operate steamboats on the hudson river livingston's company later granted the right to operate steamboats between new york and new jersey to the partnership of aaron ogden and thomas gibbons these men had a falling out as often happens with partners but they each wanted to maintain the monopoly ferrying people by steamship between new york and new jersey ogden held title to the monopoly under new york law while gibbons obtained a federal permit to operate steamboats under a congressional statute called the coastal licensing act not surprisingly as the case made its way through state courts new york state judges all ruled in ogden's favor gibbons then appealed to the united states supreme court and he hired daniel webster as his attorney a shrewd investment as previous litigants had discovered webster's argument was incorporated by the court in its opinion almost verbatim it all hinged on the word commerce was commerce limited only to the buying and selling of goods as the lawyer for ogden argued or was it more expansive than that did it include navigation the court's opinion found for gibbons in stating quote all america understands that commerce includes navigation the framers of the constitution must have used the word in that sense because the power over commerce including navigation was one of the primary objects for which the people of america adopted their government close quote under this broad definition of commerce the federal government could regulate any business including steamboats whose operations crossed state lines looking at the cartoon behind me we see the steamboat on your left say to the other get out new york gave me the exclusive right to operate steamships in new york waters the steamboat on your right responds wrong new york gave the united states the exclusive right to regulate interstate commerce like most cartoons it makes a good point but is oversimplified the word commerce could have been interpreted in a way that gave the federal government less power by limiting this clause only to goods in transit john marshall with the rest of the court took a broader approach beefing up the federal government by including the licensing of steamships as commerce in the 20th century during the depression the commerce clause was expanded even further giving congress power to limit how much wheat could be grown by a farmer in a state even if it were consumed that wheat was consumed entirely in that state this was on the basis that interstate commerce was affected because if people in a state ate wheat grown in a state it would lessen the amount of wheat demanded from other states thereby influencing interstate commerce another example of this expansion of power was the decision by the court in the famous katzenbach case in 1964 the congress had the power to outlaw discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of the commerce clause the facts are that ollie's barbecue pictured behind me could no longer limit black patrons to take out while serving white patrons inside gibbons was the first but certainly not the last case in which the supreme court used the commerce clause to expand the reach of federal power finally we've all heard about obamacare a law which mandates people carry health insurance or face a penalty this was challenged in the courts on the basis that the federal government had no power under the constitution to require that citizens carry health insurance the obama administration argued that they had the power under both the constitution under both the commerce clause and the taxation powers a divided supreme court rejected the argument as to the commerce clause but chief justice john roberts reluctantly sustained the obamacare law under the taxation powers the commerce clause is still very much alive and well even today as you can see from that example these three cases marbury mccullough and gibbons are considered the three most enduring legacies of john marshall informed what american government became marbury established the supreme court's power of judicial review mccullough expanded federal power to include anything which was necessary and proper to carry out powers which were specifically given in the constitution and gibbons established that the commerce clause expanded federal power to include anything related to commerce you