1. Heather Runkel
Forte
1st Period
Part B
Seven Marshall Cases
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
The Marbury v. Madison case was between William Marbury and Secretary of State
James Madison. Marbury appealed to the Supreme Court because he had been one of the future
appointees to a high federal court by the Organic Act passed by President John Adams. The Act
did not go in to effect because Jefferson refused to sign them into commission. Jefferson
validated this by explaining how the act had not been passed before the end of Adams’s term.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Madison because it does not have the right to issue a
mandamus, or official write from a superior court to a lower court ordering a specific action to
take place. This case verified that Congress cannot expand its rights past what they are listed as
in the Constitution.
Fletcher v. Peck (1810)
The Fletcher v. Peck case was between Robert Fletcher and John Peck. Fletcher ended up
suing Peck in 1810 after purchasing land from him in 1803. Fletcher wanted to prove the
constitutionality of the 1796 statute, which stated that land could no longer be sold at the
ridiculously low price of two cents an acre. Many ignored this and continued to sell the land at
high prices. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Peck because the 1796 was deemed

2. unconstitutional. It was determined that states could not abolish contracts, but could pass
legislation that could affect the contracts.
McCullough v. Maryland (1819)
The McCullough v. Maryland case was between McCullough, a cashier of the Baltimore
branch of the Bank of the United States, and Maryland. Maryland was suing McCullough
because he distributed bank notes against state law and he failed to pay taxes due under the
Maryland statute. McCullough questioned the overall constitutionality of the statute. The
Supreme Court first favored in Maryland, but then switched to favoring McCullough because the
state does not have a right to tax an institution created by Congress. The case proved to be one of
the few times when the Supreme Court actually reversed its ruling and proved that Marshall
strongly believed in a strong, centralized government because of the ruling.
Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819)
The Dartmouth College v. Woodward case was between Dartmouth College and William
H. Woodward. Woodward was being sued by the old trustees of the college to protest the fact
that the New Hampshire legislature changed the college so that trustees were appointed via the
governor. Dartmouth College was favored by the Supreme Court in a landslide victory because
the legislature could not interfere with the corporate charter that was Dartmouth College.
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
The Gibbons v. Ogden was between Gibbons, a person given the right to steam boat
navigation on the waters between NYC and New Jersey, and Ogden, someone also given the
privilege of steam boat navigation. Ogden sued Gibbons in pursuit of greed in keeping the

3. privilege of exclusive navigation to himself. He also testified that his steamships were liscensed
under the Act of Congress entitled “An act for enrolling and licensing ships and vessels to be
employed in the coasting trade and fisheries, and for regulating the same.” The Supreme Court
ruled in favor of Ogden, but then revered the judgment to the favor of Gibbons because a state
could not give the authority of navigation, no matter the economy, to a single authority.
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831)
The Cherokee Nation v. Georgia case was between the Native Americans of the
Cherokee Nation and Georgia. The Cherokee Indians were suing Georgia for the illegal act of
forcing them off of their land and being forced to move west. The Supreme Court ruled in favor
of Georgia because the Supreme Court had no authority in the case. They had no authority
because the Cherokee Nation was a “domestic dependent nation”, and not a foreign nation. This
case cause Marshall and the other officials of the court to be looked down upon in the future
because they basically found a loophole to get the Indians moved. This was typical of Marshall
because he believed in federalist policies, and the federalists’ views the Indians as being “in the
way”.
Worcester v. Georgia (1832)
The Worcester v. Georgia case was between Samuel A. Worcester and Georgia.
Worcester was indicted under "an act to prevent the exercise of assumed and arbitrary power by
all persons, under pretext of authority from the Cherokee Indians." The issue was whether or not
Georgia had the right to regulate the communication between citizens of Georgia and members
of the Cherokee Nation. Marshall argued that Georgia’s act was unconstitutional because the

4. Cherokee Nation exists in its own sovereign land and is not affected by Georgia law. This case
was shocking because it went against Marshall’s original federalist views.