The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Oral Argument: Monday, February 9, 1852
Decision: Tuesday, March 2, 1852
Categories: commerce clause, federalism

Advocates

Not available

Facts of the Case

A Pennsylvania law required that all ships entering or leaving the port of Philadelphia hire a local pilot. Ships that fail to do so would be subject to a fine, which would go to a fund for retire pilots and their dependents. This fund was administered by the Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadephia. Cooley was a ship owner. He refused to hire a local pilot and he also refused to pay the fine.

Question

Does the law violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution?

Conclusion

According to Justice Curtis, who wrote the majority opinion, the pilotage law did not violate the Constitution. Congress had provided in 1789 that state pilotage laws should govern. Navigation was commerce; and, piloting was navigation. Though the subject to be regulated was commerce, the interesting twist here was whether the Commerce Power was exlusive. Some subjects demand a single uniform rule for the whole nation, while others, like pilotage, demand diverse local rules to cope with varying local conditions. The power of Congress was therefore selectively exclusive.

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 53 U.S. 299 (1852),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1851/1851_0/>
(last visited ).