Cooley v. Board of Wardens
| Cooley v. Board of Wardens | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued February 9–11, 1852 Decided March 2, 1852 |
|
| Full case name | Aaron B. Cooley, Plaintiff in Error v. The Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia, to the use of the Society for the Relief of Distressed Pilots, their Widows and Children, Defendants |
| Citations | 53 U.S. 299 (more) |
| Holding | |
| Commerce Power extends to laws related to pilotage. States' laws related to commerce powers can be valid so long as Congress is silent on the matter. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Curtis, joined by Catron, Nelson, Grier, Taney |
| Concurrence | Daniel |
| Dissent | McLean, joined by Wayne |
| McKinley took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| Commerce Clause | |
Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 53 U.S. 299 (1852), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Pennsylvania law requiring all ships entering or leaving Philadelphia to hire a local pilot did not violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Those who did not comply with the law had been required to pay a fee. "It is the opinion of a majority of the court that the mere grant to Congress of the power to regulate commerce, did not deprive the States of power to regulate pilots, and that although Congress had legislated on this subject, its legislation manifests an intention, with a single exception, not to regulate this subject, but to leave its regulation to the several states," wrote Justice Curtis for the majority.
...
Wikipedia