Background In 1803, Robert Fulton, the inventor of the steamboat, and Robert Livingston, who was the ambassador to France, secured a monopoly from the New York legislature on steam navigation on the waters in the state of New York. Their monopoly extended to interstate waters-waterways between New York and another state. Fulton and Livingston licensed Aaron Ogden, a former governor of New Jersey and a U.S. senator, to operate steam-powered ferryboats between New York and New Jersey. Thomas Gibbons already operated a ferry service between New Jersey and New York, which had been licensed by Congress under a 1793 act regulating trade along the coast. Although the federal government had licensed Gibbons to operate boats in interstate waters, he did not have the state of New York's permission to compete with Ogden in that area. Ogden sued Gibbons. The New York state courts granted Ogden's request for an injunction-an order prohibiting Gibbons from operating in New York waters. Gibbons appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court. Marshall's DecisionMarshall's Decision The issue before the Court was whether the law regulated commerce that was \"among the several states.\" The chief justice on the Supreme Court was John Marshall, an advocate of a strong federal government. Marshall defined the word commerce as used in the commerce clause to mean all commercial intercoursethat is, all business dealings that affect more than one state. This broader definition included navigation. In addition to expanding the denition of commerce, Marshall also validated and increased the power of the federal legislature to regulate commerce. Said Marshall, "What is this power? It is the power . . . to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed." Marshall held that the power to regulate interstate commerce is an exclusive power of the federal government. This power includes the power to regulate any intrastate commerce that substantially affects interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Court decided in favor of Gibbons. Application to Today's World Marshall's broad definition of the commerce power established the foundation for the expansion of federal powers in the years to come. Today, the federal government continues to rely on the commerce clause for its constitutional authority to regulate business activities. Marshall's conclusion that the power to regulate interstate commerce was an exclusive power of the federal government has also had significant consequences. By implication, it means that a state cannot regulate activities that extend beyond its borders, such as out-ofstate online gambling operations that affect the welfare of iii-state citizens. It also means that state regulations over in- state activities normally will be invalidated if the regulations substantially burden interstate commerce. Landmark in the Legal Environment Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) The commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.\" Before the commerce clause came into existence, states tended to restrict commerce within and beyond their borders, which made trade more costly and inefficient. The goal of the clause was to unify the states' commerce policies and improve the efficiency of exchanges. The problem was that although the commerce clause gave Congress some authority to regulate trade among the states, the extent of that power was unclear. What exactly does "to regulate commerce" mean? What does "commerce" entail? These questions came before the United States Supreme Court in 1824 in the case of Gibbons v. Ogden. 11! Background In 1803, Robert Fulton, the inventor of the steamboat, and Robert Livingston, who was the ambassador to France, secured a monopoly from the New York legislature on steam navigation on l Discussion: We will discuss the ease summaries that are in the textbook (e.g., Case 20.], Simmons v. Smith from chapter 20}. As preparation for these discussions, you should read the ease excerpt, compare the topic to corresponding material in the text, and be prepared to answer basic questions about the case, such as: Who are the parties in this case? What went wrong why are they in court? What court is the opinion from is it a trial court or appellate court? What question did the court have to decide in this case? What facts did the court focus on in deciding the case? Your preparation is intended to make it possible for us to have discussion about the case. You do not need to master the topic covered by the ease. My expectation is that you be familiar enough with the material to be able to answer my questions as we work through the subject. If you are able to do this, you will have satised this part of the class participation requirement