In The State of Pennsylvania v. The Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a bridge built by the defendants across the Ohio River violated an act of Congress that prohibited any obstruction in navigable waters without congressional approval. The state argued that it had exclusive authority over all bridges within its borders, while the defendants maintained that they were authorized to build their bridge under Virginia law. After considering both sides' arguments, Chief Justice Taney concluded that Congress had not intended for states to have exclusive control over bridges crossing navigable rivers and held that such structures must be approved by Congress before being constructed. He further ruled that since no such authorization existed for this particular bridge, it was illegal and should be removed or altered so as not to impede navigation on the river.

In the dissenting opinion of The State of Pennsylvania v. The Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company et al., Chief Justice Taney argued that Congress did not have the power to grant a charter for a bridge across navigable waters, as it was an act which would interfere with state sovereignty. He further argued that such an act should be left up to individual states, who are better suited to decide how their own waterways should be used. Additionally, he stated that if Congress had been given this authority by implication from other powers granted in the Constitution then they could potentially use those same implied powers to pass laws which would directly contradict or supersede state legislation on any matter whatsoever. As such, Taney concluded that allowing Congress this power over navigable waters would lead down a slippery slope where they could eventually gain control over all matters within each state's jurisdiction and thus undermine its sovereignty entirely.