http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1824/ U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en-us <p>Did the State of New York exercise authority in a realm reserved exclusively to Congress, namely, the regulation of interstate commerce?</p><p>The Court found that New York's licensing requirement for out-of-state operators was inconsistent with a congressional act regulating the coasting trade. The New York law was invalid by virtue of the Supremacy Clause. In his opinion, Chief Justice Marshall developed a clear definition of the word commerce, which included navigation on interstate waterways. He also gave meaning to the phrase "among the several states" in the Commerce Clause. Marshall's was one of the earliest and most influential opinions concerning this important clause. He concluded that regulation of navigation by steamboat operators and others for purposes of conducting interstate commerce was a power reserved to and exercised by the Congress.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1824/1824_0/ <p>Did the federal circuit court's assertion of jurisdiction over the case, which involved an action commenced against the state of Ohio, violate the Eleventh Amendment?</p><p>In a 6-to-1 decision, the Court held that the circuit court properly ruled against Ohio officials and that the Ohio law was "repugnant to the Constitution." The Court held that the Eleventh Amendment was limited to suits in which a state was party on the record, and that Ohio was not the target of the suit in the case at hand. Osborn and his colleagues were thus "incontestably liable for the full amount of the money taken out of the bank."</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1824/1824_2/