Constitutional Law Reporter
Award
Menu
  • Home
  • US Constitution
  • Supreme court cases
  • Justices
    • Chief Justices
    • Current Supreme Court Justices
    • Past US Supreme Court Justices
  • American Biographies
  • Articles
    • Current Cases
    • Historical Cases
    • Impeachment
  • Videos
  • Links
Hot-Topics

April 18, 2018 | Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Six Cases

Ogden v Saunders: The Contracts Clause

Historical

In Ogden v Saunders, 25 U.S. 213 (1827), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a New York bankruptcy law did not violate the Constitution’s Contracts Clause. The case is also most remembered as the only decision from which Chief Justice John Marshall dissented.

The Obligation of Contracts Clause

Article I, Section 10 provides that “No State shall . . . pass any . . . law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” The Framers included the provision to deter state “debtor relief” laws that they believed were immoral and worsened economic instability.

The Facts in Ogden v Saunders

Saunders, a citizen of Kentucky, demanded payment in accordance with a contract. Ogden, a citizen of Louisiana, was living in New York when the contract was signed. In defense of the suit, Ogden claimed bankruptcy under a New York bankruptcy law enacted in 1801. Saunders was represented by Daniel Webster, who argued that Constitution’s bar on states from impairing the obligations of contracts applied equally to past and future contracts.

The Majority Opinion in Ogden v Saunders

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ogden. According to the majority, the New York bankruptcy law did not violate the Obligation of Contracts Clause.

In reaching its decision, the majority concluded that Contracts Clause prohibited states from enacting laws affecting contracts already signed. Accordingly, the obligation of a contract made after the enactment of a state bankruptcy law is subject to its provisions because the bankruptcy statute becomes part of all subsequent contracts.

Chief Justice Marshall’s Dissent in Ogden v Saunders

Chief Justice John Marshall authored a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Gabriel Duvall and Joseph Story. The dissenters argued that Congress had exclusive power to pass bankruptcy laws. With regard to whether state laws become part of contracts signed, Chief Justice Marshall maintained that “contracts derive their obligation from the act of the parties, not from the grant of government.”

In his dissenting opinion, the Chief Justice also summarized his beliefs on how the Constitution should be interpreted, writing:

To say that the intention of the instrument must prevail; that this intention must be collected from its words; that its words are to be understood in that sense in which they are generally used by those for whom the instrument was intended; that its provisions are neither to be restricted into insignificance, nor extended to objects not comprehended in them, nor contemplated by its framers; — is to repeat what has been already said more at large, and is all that can be necessary.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ARTICLES

Hall v Hall: Consolidated Cases Remain Independent for Appeal
by DONALD SCARINCI on April 11, 2018

In Hall v Hall, 584 U. S. ____ (2018), the U.S. Supreme Court held that consolidated cases remain in...

Read More
Marinello v United States: IRS “Omnibus Clause” Requires Nexus for Tax Obstruction
by DONALD SCARINCI on April 5, 2018

In Marinello v United States, 584 U. S. ____ (2018), the U.S. Supreme Court held that prosecutors mu...

Read More
Conditions for Land Use Approvals Require a Nexus to the Property
by DONALD SCARINCI on April 3, 2018

In Koontz v St Johns River Water, 133 S.Ct. 2586 (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court held that government...

Read More
All Posts

The Amendments

  • Amendment1
    • Establishment ClauseFree Exercise Clause
    • Freedom of Speech
    • Freedoms of Press
    • Freedom of Assembly, and Petitition
    Read More
  • Amendment2
    • The Right to Bear Arms
    Read More
  • Amendment4
    • Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
    Read More
  • Amendment5
    • Due Process
    • Eminent Domain
    • Rights of Criminal Defendants
    Read More

Preamble to the Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Read More

More Recent Posts

  • Conditions for Land Use Approvals Require a Nexus to the Property
  • Stop the Beach Renourishment v Florida Department of Environmental Protection: Littoral Rights in Florida are Protected
  • Kelo v New London: Taking Land for Private Development Doesn’t Violate Constitution
  • Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Constitutional Law

Constitutional Law Tweets

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REPORTER RSS FEED

Hill on the Ideological Origins of the Rule of Law
26 April 2018 - Lawrence Solum

Peter J. Hill (Wheaton College) has posted The Ideological Origins of the Rule of Law (Presented at [...]

Shapiro & Verchick on Distributional Effects of Environmental Regulation
26 April 2018 - Lawrence Solum

Sidney A. Shapiro (Wake Forest University School of Law) & Robert R. M. Verchick (Loyola Univers [...]

Thursday round-up
26 April 2018 - Edith Roberts

Yesterday the Supreme Court wrapped up its last session of the term with oral argument in one of thi [...]

Ruben & Blocher on Empirical Study of the Second Amendment after Heller
26 April 2018 - Lawrence Solum

Eric Ruben (New York University School of Law; Brennan Center for Justice) & Joseph Blocher (Duk [...]

Blecher-Prigat on Contested Parentage & Relationships Between Prospective Parents
26 April 2018 - Lawrence Solum

Ayelet Blecher-Prigat (The Academic College for Law & Science) has posted Conceiving Parents (Ha [...]

Editor

Donald Scarinci

Managing Partner

Scarinci Hollenbeck

(201) 806-3364

Constitutional Law Reporter

Follow me

© 2016 Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC. All rights reserved.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Attorney Advertising