This Supreme Court case was between Gibbons and Ogden. At the heart of the dispute was a New York law that granted Aaron Ogden exclusive rights to operate steamboats on certain waters within the state. Thomas Gibbons, who had been operating his own steamboat in those same waters under a federal license, challenged this law as unconstitutional because it interfered with Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. The court agreed with Gibbons and ruled that only Congress has authority over interstate commerce; states do not have such authority even if they pass laws granting exclusive privileges for navigation or trade within their borders. This ruling established an important precedent by limiting state control over commercial activities that cross state lines and affirming congressional power to regulate them instead.

The dissenting opinion in Gibbons v. Ogden argued that the power to regulate commerce was not exclusive to Congress, but rather could be shared with states. The dissent reasoned that since the Constitution does not explicitly grant Congress exclusive authority over interstate commerce, it should be assumed that states can also exercise some control over such matters. Furthermore, the dissent argued that if a state law is found to conflict with federal legislation on this matter then it should be up to the courts of each respective state to decide which law takes precedence and how they will interact with one another. Ultimately, while recognizing Congress' right under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution "to regulate Commerce...among several States," Justice Johnson concluded his opinion by asserting: "It would seem from these considerations…that there must exist concurrent jurisdiction in all cases where both governments have an equal interest."