Open App →
Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Cooley v. Board of Wardens

Supreme Court of the United States · 1851 · Constitutional Law
53 U.S. (12 How.) 299 (1851)
Updated
Constitutional LawCommerce ClauseDormant Commerce ClausePilotagestate police powernavigationlocal subjectsnational uniformity

Facts

Pennsylvania's 1803 pilotage law required certain vessels arriving from or bound to foreign ports, and certain large vessels on other voyages, to take a pilot, and imposed a charge equal to half-pilotage if the master refused or neglected to do so, subject to stated exceptions. Cooley was sued to recover those half-pilotage fees. He contended that the state law contravened several constitutional provisions, including those concerning duties and tonnage and Congress's power to regulate commerce. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the law, and Cooley sought review.

Issue

Whether Pennsylvania's law imposing half-pilotage charges on covered vessels that refused or neglected to take a pilot was unconstitutional because it regulated commerce reserved exclusively to Congress or because it imposed forbidden duties or tonnage charges under Article I.

Rule

The grant of the commerce power to Congress does not by itself deprive the states of all authority over every subject touching commerce. Subjects of commerce that are national in nature or admit only one uniform system require exclusive congressional regulation, but subjects that are local in nature and demand diverse rules adapted to local conditions may be regulated by the states unless Congress has enacted conflicting legislation or otherwise displaced state authority.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

  • The court's holding and reasoning
  • Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
  • 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Maine requires all tankers entering Portland Harbor during winter months to either accept a locally licensed ice-navigation pilot or pay a standby charge if a qualified pilot was timely offered and refused. Congress has enacted no pilotage rule for Portland Harbor.

The tanker owner challenges the law as an unconstitutional regulation of interstate and foreign commerce because pilotage falls within Congress's commerce power. What is the strongest response?

Explanation. The majority held that pilotage is a regulation of navigation and thus of commerce, but also that pilotage is a local subject that often requires different rules suited to local conditions. Therefore, the mere grant of commerce power to Congress does not itself bar state regulation of pilotage. A state pilotage rule may stand unless Congress has displaced it or enacted a conflicting system.