Both Thomas Gibbons and Aaron Ogden were given the right to operate steamboats between New York and New Jersey. Gibbons operated with a federal coastal license and Ogden operating with a monopoly license given to him by New York. Ogden sued against Gibbons because he did not agree with Gibbons operating on the same route as him.

After Ogden filled his bill in the Court of Chancery of that state against Gibbons, Gibbons stated that both his boats were duly enrolled and licensed to be employed in carrying on the coasting trade under the Act of Congress passed February 18, 1793. At the hearing the Chancellor perpetuated the injunction, being the opinion that the said acts were not in conflict to the Constitution or the law of the U.S. were valid. This was confirmed by the Court for the Trail of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, which is the highest court of law and equity in the state which the cause could be carried. After losing twice Gibbons appealed in the Supreme Court.

Petitioner: The license created under a congressional acts was valid because the laws of a state is lower than the federal laws. Commerce Clause gives Federal Government the power and control over interstate commerce. Federal coasting license over rules any New York regulation.

Respondent: The New York law protected Ogden's right to operate his steamboats in New York and the state law was the ruling power over the issue. New York has the authority to regulate business within its boundaries. New York did not do anything wrong by trying to regulate commerce.

The petitioner wants to be able to operate his steamboats because he has a federal coasting license given to him by the federal government which has the control of interstate commerce and not the states which the respondent has.

The Supreme Court voted on the half of Gibbons because the Constitution gives only Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce not the states. The date the majority decision was delivered on March 2, 1824.

The majority decision was made by Justices John Marshall, Bushord Washington, Thomas Todd, Gabriel Duvall, and Joseph Story. Justice John Marshall wrote the majority opinion and it was just simply the argument that Congress has the power to make the decision over states on commerce.

Justice William Johnson had a concurring opinion which argued somewhat of a stronger position, that the national government had exclusive power over interstate commerce, negating state laws interfering state laws interfering with the exercise

Justice William Johnson had a concurring opinion which argued that the states should be in control of their own commerce and not the national government.

This case did not take away from the Constitution because it was decided at the end that the national government does have the power over commerce as stated in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.

The United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Trail."

This case of Gibbons v. Ogden does have an effect on my family and I because lets say South Carolina decides to charge us in order to go there every single time and for us to leave.

The case of Gibbons v. Ogden is still brought up in court till this day, because it helps the court decision to be made over interstate commerce.