AP American Government Required Supreme Court Cases
McCulloch v Maryland, 1819
S y n o p s i s o f t h e C a s e
The state of Maryland had attempted to impede operation of a branch of the Second Bank of the United States by
imposing a tax on all notes of banks not chartered in Maryland. Though the law, by its language, was generally
applicable to all banks not chartered in Maryland, the Second Bank of the United States was the only out-of-state bank
then existing in Maryland, and the law was recognized in the court's opinion as having specifically targeted the Bank of
the United States.
James McCulloch, head of the Baltimore Branch of the Second Bank of the United States, refused to pay the Maryland
tax and the bank was represented by Daniel Webster. The lawsuit was filed by John James, an informer. The case was
appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals where the state of Maryland argued that "the Constitution is silent on the
subject of banks." It was Maryland's contention that because the Constitution did not specifically state that the federal
government was authorized to charter a bank, the Bank of the United States itself was unconstitutional. The court upheld
Maryland. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court.
J u d g e m e n t:
In a 7 – 0 ruling, the Court ruled in support of McCullough.
This case established two important principles in constitutional law: (1) the Constitution grants to Congress implied powers
for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a functional national government, and (2) state
action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government. The Court invoked the
Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, which allowed the Federal government to pass laws not expressly
provided for in the Constitution's list of express powers, provided those laws are in useful furtherance of the express
powers of Congress under the Constitution.
C o u r t J u d i c i a l I n t e r p r e t a t i o n
➢ The Court determined that Congress did have the power to create the Bank. Chief Justice Marshall supported this
conclusion with four main arguments.
(1) he argued that historical practice established Congress' power to create the Bank. Marshall invoked the first Bank
of the United States history as authority for the constitutionality of the second bank.
(2) Chief Justice Marshall refuted the argument that states retain ultimate sovereignty because they ratified the
constitution. "The powers of the general government, it has been said, are delegated by the states, who alone are truly
sovereign; and must be exercised in subordination to the states, who alone possess supreme dominion." Marshall
contended that it was the people who ratified the Constitution and thus the people are sovereign, not the states.
(3) Marshall addressed the scope of congressional powers under Article I. Marshall admitted that the Constitution
does not enumerate a power to create a central Bank but said that this is not dispositive as to Congress's power to
establish such an institution.
(4) Marshall supported the Court's opinion textually by invoking the Necessary and Proper Clause, which permits
Congress to seek an objective while exercising its enumerated powers so long as the objective is not forbidden by the
Constitution. In liberally interpreting the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Court rejected Maryland's narrow
interpretation of the clause, which purported that the word "necessary" in the Necessary and Proper Clause meant that
Congress could only pass those laws that were absolutely essential in the execution of its enumerated powers. The
Court rejected this argument, on the grounds that many of the enumerated powers of Congress under the Constitution
would be useless if only those laws deemed essential to a power's execution could be passed. Marshall also noted that
the Necessary and Proper Clause is listed within the powers of Congress, not the limitations.
➢ The Court held that for these reasons, the word "necessary" in the Necessary and Proper Clause (elastic clause) does
not refer to the only way of doing something, but rather applies to various procedures for implementing all
constitutionally-established powers.
➢ Chief Justice Marshall also determined that Maryland may not tax the bank without violating the Constitution. The Court
voided the tax on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. The opinion stated that Congress has implied powers that need
to be related to the text of the Constitution, but need not be enumerated within the text.
➢ Chief Justice Marshall also explained in this case that the Necessary and Proper Clause does not require that all
federal laws be necessary and proper and that federal laws that are enacted directly pursuant to one of the express,
enumerated powers granted by the Constitution need not comply with the Necessary and Proper Clause, holding that
the clause "purport[s] to enlarge, not to diminish the powers vested in the government. It purports to be an
additional power, not a restriction on those already granted."
