Coffin v. Ogden was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state could grant exclusive rights to operate a steamboat on a navigable river. The case was brought by Thomas Coffin, who had been granted a license by the state of New York to operate a steamboat on the Hudson River. The defendant, Aaron Ogden, had also been granted a license by the state of New York to operate a steamboat on the same river. The Supreme Court held that the state of New York could not grant exclusive rights to operate a steamboat on a navigable river. The Court reasoned that the power to regulate commerce on navigable rivers was vested in Congress, and that the state of New York had no authority to grant exclusive rights to operate a steamboat on the Hudson River. The Court further held that the state of New York could not grant exclusive rights to operate a steamboat on a navigable river because it would interfere with the power of Congress to regulate commerce. The decision in Coffin v. Ogden was significant because it established the principle that the power to regulate commerce on navigable rivers was vested in Congress, and that the states could not grant exclusive rights to operate a steamboat on a navigable river. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the regulation of commerce on navigable rivers.

In Coffin v. Ogden, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state law that prohibited non-residents from engaging in certain occupations within its borders violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The majority opinion held that such laws were unconstitutional and infringed upon Congress’ exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce. However, Justice Field dissented on this issue, arguing that states have an inherent right to protect their citizens by regulating activities within their own borders and preventing outsiders from taking advantage of them. He argued further that while Congress has been granted some authority over interstate commerce through the Commerce Clause, it does not extend so far as to allow for complete control over all economic activity between states or even within a single state's boundaries. Therefore, he concluded that states should be allowed to pass laws which limit certain activities only if they are necessary for public safety or welfare reasons without infringing upon federal powers under the Commerce Clause