History Now. Interactive History

	McCullough v. Maryland (1819)

The State of Maryland, wishing to tax the Bank of the United States, levied a tax on all notes issued by out-of-state banks. James McCullough, a cashier at a branch of the Bank of the United States, refused to pay the tax and was taken to court. The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that there is no specific mention of a bank in the Constitution, so the Bank of the United States was not part of the Federal government, and could be subject to state tax. McCullough claimed that the Constitution grants implicit powers to Congress to create a functional national government, and that state action may not interfere with valid Federal government actions.


	Is the Bank of the United States allowed under the Constitution, even though no specific mention of a bank is made? And did Maryland interfere with the federal government’s powers by taxing the bank?



		US Supreme Court Justice John Marshall


		In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Marshall noted that Congress possessed “unenumerated” powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. Marshall also held that while the states retained the power of taxation, "the constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme … they control the constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them."



		This case establishes the power of the Constitution’s commerce clause and the supremacy of federal law over state law. Marshall’s ruling also establishes the principal of unenumerated powers -- powers that the Constitution gives the federal government that are not explicitly mentioned in the document itself. For a full summary of this case, go to: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1819/1819_0/

The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History