Home The Supreme Court What Are The Implied Powers

What Are The Implied Powers

What Are The Implied Powers

The concept of implied powers refers to the powers that the federal government is assumed to have, even if those powers are not specifically listed in the Constitution. This concept has been the subject of significant debate throughout the history of the Supreme Court, with cases involving implied powers often raising questions about the nature and scope of federal authority. In this article, we will explore the concept of implied powers in the Supreme Court, examining some of the most important cases related to this topic.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

One of the most significant Supreme Court cases related to implied powers is McCulloch v. Maryland. This 1819 case involved a dispute over whether the federal government had the power to establish a national bank. The Court held that the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution granted the federal government implied powers to establish the bank, stating that “the powers of the federal government are supreme… and independent of the states.” This decision established the principle that the federal government possessed significant implied powers beyond those specifically listed in the Constitution.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

Another important Supreme Court case related to implied powers is Gibbons v. Ogden. This 1824 case involved a dispute over the regulation of steamboat traffic on interstate waters. The Court held that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution granted the federal government implied powers to regulate interstate commerce, including transportation on interstate waterways. This decision helped to establish the principle that the federal government had broad authority to regulate economic activities that crossed state lines.

National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937)

National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. is another significant Supreme Court case related to implied powers. This 1937 case involved a challenge to the National Labor Relations Act, a federal law that established protections for workers’ right to organize and bargain collectively. The Court upheld the law, stating that the Commerce Clause granted the federal government implied powers to regulate labor relations to promote interstate commerce. This decision helped to establish the principle that the federal government had significant authority to regulate not just economic activities that crossed state lines, but also activities that affected interstate commerce more broadly.

Conclusion

The concept of implied powers has been a significant issue in the Supreme Court, with cases related to this topic often raising questions about the nature and scope of federal authority. The cases discussed above represent just a few examples of the many cases that the Court has heard related to implied powers. Through its decisions, the Court has established important principles related to the scope of federal authority, clarifying the extent to which the federal government possesses implied powers beyond those specifically listed in the Constitution. As such, it is important that we continue to engage with the Court’s decisions related to implied powers, to ensure that we have a clear understanding of the federal government’s authority and its limits.

1819 case of McCulloch v. Maryland addressed the scope of powers held by the Federal Government and expanded them in provoking the creation of the doctrine of implied powers granted under the Constitution. The Supreme Court thus placed limits of states to act against programs undertaken by the Federal Government.

To provide justification for this decision, the Court appealed to Clause 18, Section 8 of article Iof the Constitution, as it is considered to represent the “Necessary and Proper Clause.” This section grants Congress the ability to pass legislation which it finds “necessary and proper” for the task of exercising the other rights expressly given by the Constitution.

The implied powers doctrine came out of an attempt by the State of Maryland to block under the law the operations of the Federally-backed Second Bank of the United States. The State Legislature thus placed a tax on the notes held by all banks originally established outside of the State. Though it did not specifically mention the Second Bank, the Supreme Court found that it could reasonably establish that this was the purpose of the law, given that no other out-of-state banks then existed in Maryland.

Under the heading of the legislation, the Second Bank’s president, James McCulloch, had been prosecuted after he refused to pay the required fee. On appeal, the State made the
the argument that the Constitution does not mention banks and that the Second Bank
of the United States thus lacked Constitutional protection. The Supreme Court rejected the actions of the State by finding that the Federal Government held implied powers under the Constitution, such as it had exercised by creating Federal banks.

Chief Justice Marshall wrote the Court’s opinion, referring to the political concept of the social contract to establish the binding power of the Federal Government as provided by the Constitution. Marshall then observed that the Constitution could not specifically address all of the specific ways in which the Government would fulfill the duties to which
it was generally obligated, but rather implied the functions which the Government might take on to meet its responsibilities.

The opinion referred to the Necessary and Proper Clause as the place in which the implied powers the concept is explicitly addressed and that this stipulation was classed with
other Congressional powers, rather than their limitations. As expressed in Marshall’s opinion, the implied powers doctrine thereby established the broadly-defined the ability of Congress to use powers which it was not barred from exercising rather than those which it was explicitly given the right to use.

Marshall did not place the existence of implied powers as an absolute limitation on other
rights, but specified that an implied power might be limited by the finding that a right already granted to states or individual citizens conflicted with it. The outcome of McCulloch v. Maryland nevertheless placed new and wide-reaching limitations on the power of states and signaled the beginning of a newly broadened understanding of Federal power, particularly over individual State governments and laws.