WILLSON AND OTHERS v. the Black Bird Creek Marsh Company
2 Pet. 245, 7 L. Ed. 412, 27 U.S. 245 (1829)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law enacted pursuant to the state's police powers is not unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause if it only incidentally burdens interstate commerce and does not conflict with any federal legislation.
Facts:
- The Black Bird Creek Marsh Company was incorporated by an act of the Delaware legislature.
- The act authorized the company to build a dam across Black Bird Creek, a small, navigable tidal stream within Delaware.
- The stated purpose of the dam was to drain a surrounding marsh to improve the health of local inhabitants and increase the value of the property.
- The dam obstructed navigation on the creek.
- Willson, the owner of a sloop licensed under federal navigation laws, broke through the company's dam while attempting to navigate the creek.
Procedural Posture:
- The Black Bird Creek Marsh Company filed a suit for trespass in a Delaware state court against Willson for damages to its dam.
- Willson defended by arguing that the Delaware law authorizing the dam was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.
- The Delaware state trial court found in favor of the Black Bird Creek Marsh Company.
- Willson appealed to the High Court of Errors and Appeals of the State of Delaware (the state's highest court), which affirmed the lower court's decision.
- Willson (as plaintiff in error) then brought the case to the U.S. Supreme Court on a writ of error.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state law authorizing the construction of a dam on a navigable waterway violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, in the absence of conflicting federal legislation?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Marshall
No, the state law authorizing the dam does not violate the Commerce Clause. A state law enacted under its legitimate police powers, such as protecting public health and improving property, is permissible even if it incidentally affects interstate commerce, provided that Congress has not exercised its authority by enacting conflicting federal legislation. The Court reasoned that the Delaware law was a measure to improve local health and property values, which falls within the powers reserved to the states. While the dam does obstruct a navigable waterway, this is an affair between Delaware and its citizens unless it conflicts with a power of the federal government. Since Congress had passed no act to control state legislation over such small, navigable creeks, Delaware's law was not in conflict with any federal law and was therefore not repugnant to the 'dormant' power of the Commerce Clause.
Analysis:
This case is foundational for the doctrine of the 'dormant' or 'negative' Commerce Clause. It established the principle that states retain significant police power authority to regulate local matters of health, safety, and welfare, even when those regulations have an incidental impact on interstate commerce. The decision suggests a concurrent power over commerce, where state laws are valid so long as they do not conflict with federal legislation. This contrasts with the broader view of exclusive federal power suggested in Gibbons v. Ogden and sets the stage for future balancing tests to determine the validity of state laws that burden commerce.
Unlock the full brief for WILLSON AND OTHERS v. the Black Bird Creek Marsh Company