Lesson 1.8 · Unit 1 · CED topic 1.8
Necessary and proper: McCulloch v. Maryland
The central question of American federalism is how much power the national government really has. The Constitution lists specific powers, but it also says Congress may make laws "necessary and proper" for carrying them out. Did that give Congress room to do things that were not on the list? The Supreme Court answered in 1819 in McCulloch v. Maryland, one of the fourteen required cases, and its answer is still the foundation of national power. This lesson covers the facts, issue, holding, and reasoning, which the exam asks you to know for every required case.
Learning objective.
- 1.8.A. Explain how the balance of power between national and state governments has changed over time based on interpretations of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Essential knowledge.
- 1.8.A.3. The Necessary and Proper Clause gives Congress the power to make laws related to carrying out its enumerated powers, but Supreme Court interpretations can influence the extent of these powers.
- 1.8.A.4. The Supremacy Clause gives the national government and its laws general precedence over states’ laws, but Supreme Court interpretations may affect when specific actions exceed this constitutional power.
The case
Facts. In 1816 Congress chartered the Second Bank of the United States. Maryland, which disliked the bank's competition with state banks, passed a law taxing any bank not chartered by the state. James McCulloch, a cashier of the Baltimore branch of the national bank, refused to pay the tax.
Issues. (1) Does Congress have the power to create a national bank, which the Constitution does not list? (2) May a state tax a national institution?
Holding. Yes to the first, no to the second. Congress had the implied power to charter the bank, and Maryland could not tax it.
Reasoning. Chief Justice John Marshall relied on the Necessary and Proper Clause. The bank was not named, but it was a means to carry out enumerated powers such as taxing, borrowing, and regulating commerce. On the second question, the Supremacy Clause makes the Constitution and federal laws the supreme law of the land, so a state cannot use its taxing power to destroy a federal institution. Marshall wrote that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy."
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8 and Article VI.
The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land.
Sourcing. These are the textual hooks of the case. The first clause lets Congress use implied powers, and the second ranks national law above conflicting state law. Neither clause says how far the power reaches, and that is why the Court had to interpret them.
Why it matters
McCulloch establishes two principles you can use throughout the course. First, national power is not limited to the words on the list. If an end is legitimate and within the Constitution's scope, Congress may use appropriate means. Marshall wrote that all means "which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional." Second, the national government is supreme within its sphere, and states cannot interfere with it. The Anti-Federalists feared exactly this expansion. The Federalists, and Marshall, argued that a government with real powers had to be able to choose the means to use them.
Scenario. A state passes a law taxing the operations of a federal agency inside its borders. The agency challenges the tax.
Question. Explain how McCulloch v. Maryland applies.
Model. In McCulloch, the Court held that a state may not tax a national institution because the Supremacy Clause places federal law above state law and the power to tax could be used to destroy a federal institution. The same reasoning applies to a state tax on a federal agency. The tax would interfere with a valid exercise of national power, so it is unconstitutional.
Question. Explain how the Necessary and Proper Clause increased the power of Congress after McCulloch.
Model. Before the ruling, a narrow reading would limit Congress to the powers listed in Article I. McCulloch held that Congress can use any appropriate means that are not prohibited to carry out enumerated powers. This allowed Congress to create institutions and take actions not explicitly named, which expanded national authority relative to the states.
LO 1.8.A asks you to explain how the balance of power has changed over time based on Supreme Court interpretations. For McCulloch, memorize: Maryland taxed the national bank; the Court held the national bank constitutional and the tax invalid; the clauses are Necessary and Proper and Supremacy. On a SCOTUS Comparison, you may need to compare it with a non-required case about whether a state or federal action exceeds its authority.
- What did Maryland do that led to McCulloch v. Maryland?
Show answer
It taxed the Baltimore branch of the Second Bank of the United States, a national bank.
- Which clause allows implied powers?
Show answer
The Necessary and Proper Clause in Article I, Section 8.
- What did the Court hold about Maryland's tax?
Show answer
It was unconstitutional because states cannot tax or otherwise impede a valid federal institution.
- Which clause did the Court rely on to make federal law supreme?
Show answer
The Supremacy Clause in Article VI.
- Who wrote the opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland?
Show answer
Chief Justice John Marshall.
- How did the case change the balance of power between nation and states?
Show answer
It strengthened the national government by confirming implied powers and the supremacy of federal law over state action.