Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Gibbons v. Ogden

Supreme Court of the United States · 1824 · Constitutional Law

Commerce Clauseinterstate commercefederal powernavigationCommerce Clausenavigationinterstate commercecoasting trade

Facts

New York statutes granted Livingston and Fulton an exclusive right to navigate New York waters by steam, and Ogden claimed that right by assignment for the route between Elizabethtown, New Jersey, and New York City. Gibbons operated two steam boats on that route and alleged that his vessels were duly enrolled and licensed under the federal coasting trade act. Ogden sued to enjoin Gibbons from operating those steam boats in New York waters, and New York courts upheld the injunction. The dispute turned on whether New York could exclude federally licensed vessels from those waters because they used steam.

Issue

Whether New York's laws granting an exclusive steam-navigation monopoly could be enforced against vessels that were licensed under federal law to carry on the coasting trade. More broadly, whether Congress's power to regulate commerce includes navigation and extends to interstate navigation within state waters so as to displace conflicting state law.

Rule

Commerce under the Constitution includes commercial intercourse and therefore includes navigation. Congress's power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States extends to interstate navigation within state waters, though not to commerce that is completely internal to a State. When Congress validly exercises that power, state laws that interfere or collide with the federal rule must yield under the Supremacy Clause; and a federal coasting license confers authority to carry on the coasting trade.

🔒

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lakeview Transit operates motorized catamarans carrying paying sightseers and commuters between Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Muskegon, Michigan. Wisconsin grants Harbor Crown Ferries an exclusive state franchise to use motorized vessels on that interstate route and seeks to stop Lakeview, arguing that sightseeing and passenger service are not 'commerce' because no goods are sold onboard.

Which is the strongest argument against Wisconsin's position?

Explanation. Commerce is not limited to traffic in goods. The majority defined commerce as commercial intercourse and expressly treated navigation—including vessels exclusively employed in transporting passengers—as part of commerce. Because the route is between Wisconsin and Michigan, it is commerce among the several states. A state cannot avoid that conclusion by characterizing the business as passenger or sightseeing service rather than goods transport.