| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

This Supreme Court case involved a dispute between the President, Directors & Company of the Bank of the United States (the defendants) and M'Gill and others (the plaintiffs). The plaintiffs had taken out loans from the bank in 1818. They argued that they were entitled to have their debt discharged due to an act passed by Congress in 1819 which prohibited banks from issuing notes for less than five dollars. The defendants argued that this law did not apply retroactively, so it could not be used as grounds for discharging debts already incurred before its passage. Ultimately, Chief Justice Marshall ruled in favor of the defendants on two separate points: firstly, he held that there was no evidence showing any intention on behalf of Congress to make such laws applicable retrospectively; secondly, he found that even if retrospective application had been intended by Congress when passing this law, it would still be unconstitutional since only state legislatures are allowed to pass retrospective legislation under Article I Section 10 Clause 1of US Constitution.
In the case of M'Gill and Others v. The President, Directors & Company of the Bank of the United States, Chief Justice Marshall wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Congress did not have authority to incorporate a bank under its implied powers. He stated that while Congress had broad power over commerce between states, it was limited by other parts of the Constitution such as those granting certain rights to citizens and prohibiting interference with state laws. Furthermore, he argued that even if there were some constitutional basis for incorporating a bank, this particular act went beyond what was necessary or proper because it granted too much control to private individuals who could use their influence for personal gain rather than public benefit. Ultimately, Chief Justice Marshall concluded that Congress exceeded its authority when creating this bank and thus violated both federalism principles as well as individual rights protected by the Constitution.