McCulloch v. Maryland is a famous U.S. Supreme Court case decided in 1819. Maryland thought that if a Pigouvian tax were imposed on the bank it hated, it would kill it. Pigouvian tax is a way in which the government imposes high taxes to reduce demand and supply.
In 1818, the Second Bank of the United States opened a branch in Baltimore, and Maryland’s legislature approved a $15,000 annual fee for operating without a state charter. But the cashier, James McCulloch, at that Baltimore branch refused to pay the tax. Maryland sued him. The state courts ruled in favor of Maryland. It was then taken to the Supreme Court, where Chief Justice John Marshall delivered one of its most important constitutional rulings in American history.
McCulloch v. Maryland, the state lost. Completely.
But the more interesting part is why. What Marshall wrote on March 6, 1819, wasn’t really about a bank tax. It was about how the Constitution should be read, who gets to say what the federal government can do, and whether states can chip away at federal power by coming at it sideways.
McCulloch v. Maryland: A Bank Nobody Could Agree On
In 1791, Congress established the first Bank of the United States, which was strongly disliked by the time it was formed. Thomas Jefferson believed it was unconstitutional. Alexander Hamilton had a strong objection. In 1811, the bank’s charter expired, and Congress allowed it to expire.
The federal finances were severely damaged by the War of 1812, and by 1816, Congress had changed its mind and established the Second Bank of the United States. States weren’t happy about it. They saw the bank as a federal institution undercutting their own state-chartered banks and threatening their financial footing. Several states tried to push back through taxation. Maryland was just the one whose tax eventually made it to Washington.
Textbooks usually skip one thing, and that is that James McCulloch was praised as a “Hero”, later on, the federal government realised that James robbed the national bank for the last two years. The two most important questions:
- Whether Maryland have any right to tax a federal institution?
- Whether Congress has any right to create one?
The Two Questions Marshall Couldn’t Dodge in McCulloch v. Maryland
The Court had two problems in front of it in McCulloch v. Maryland, and Marshall answered both the same way.
Did Congress have the power to create a national bank? The Constitution doesn’t say anything about banks. Article I, Section 8 outlines a list of acts Congress can do. “Create a bank” isn’t on it.
Maryland presented clean arguments. If the document doesn’t say Congress can do it, Congress can’t do it. The Tenth Amendment backs this up, “powers not given to the federal government belong to the states.”
Marshall’s answer in McCulloch v. Maryland came from a clause at the very end of Article I, Section 8. It gives Congress the power to pass all laws “necessary and proper” for carrying out its listed powers. Maryland read “necessary” as meaning strictly required. Marshall rejected that. Stating that a constitution which tried to list every possible law Congress might ever need would be so long and detailed that it would collapse under its own weight. The framers didn’t build a rigid checklist. They built a framework.
“Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate and adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, are constitutional.”
What gives Maryland the power to tax the bank at all? Marshall answered this with the line that gets quoted in almost every constitutional law class: the power to tax involves the power to destroy.
The reasoning was straightforward. The Constitution makes federal law supreme over state law. If states could tax federal institutions, they could eventually price them out of existence. Maryland’s voters didn’t vote on the federal bank. The people of all the states created the federal government. Letting one state’s legislature effectively control or kill a federal institution would give Maryland power over citizens in every other state. That was exactly what the Constitution was designed to prevent.
The tax imposed on the Second Bank was ruled null and void.
What Marshall Actually Did to the Tenth Amendment
This is the part that gets buried in most summaries, and it matters more than people realize.
Maryland had argued that the Tenth Amendment closed the question. That amendment reserves to the states all powers not given to the federal government. If the Constitution doesn’t list “create a bank,” the state keeps that power.
Marshall went back to the text with a specific comparison. Under the Constitution’s predecessor, the Articles of Confederation, states reserved all powers “not expressly” given to the federal government. That word “expressly” is a tight cap. The Tenth Amendment dropped it entirely. It only says powers “not delegated” to the United States are reserved.
Marshall argued that omission was deliberate. The framers had governed under the Articles and knew how badly that rigid language constrained the federal government. They left “expressly” out on purpose. The Tenth Amendment, in his reading, doesn’t block implied powers. It just leaves the question of what’s been delegated to a fair reading of the whole Constitution.
That reading provoked an immediate backlash. Andrew Jackson vetoed the bank’s rechartering in 1832, telling Congress the bank was unconstitutional regardless of what Marshall had ruled. Virginia judges attacked the decision in newspaper columns. Marshall himself wrote responses under pen names, first calling himself “A Friend of the Union” and later “A Friend of the Constitution.” The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, arguing anonymously in the press for his own ruling. That alone tells you how contested this decision was.
The political fight over states’ rights didn’t end with the opinion. It shifted arenas.
Why This Case Won’t Go Away
McCulloch v. Maryland is one of those cases law students meet in the first weeks of a constitutional law course and then keep bumping into for the rest of their careers. It sits underneath how American courts have thought about federal power ever since.
Every time Congress passes a law not specifically authorized by a named clause in the Constitution, the justification usually runs through the necessary and proper clause as Marshall read it in McCulloch v. Maryland. The Federal Reserve, federal workplace safety rules, environmental regulations: none of these are named in Article I. They all rest, in part, on the framework Marshall applied to a bank cashier in Baltimore in 1819.
Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet, writing on the case’s 200th anniversary, said it plainly: In the case McCulloch v. Maryland, if McCulloch had gone the other way, there would have been powerful arguments against the creation of what we now call the modern administrative state. The ruling didn’t just save one bank. It made room for the federal government to take on responsibilities the framers never specifically wrote down.
The states’ rights argument has not gone away, either. Marshall’s defenders contend that he overextended the required and proper clause, and that the Tenth Amendment should be accorded greater significance than he attributed. The argument comes up often in Supreme Court battles over federal healthcare law, climate, and agency power. The particulars vary. The issues are the same as those that Maryland took to Washington in 1819 in McCulloch v. Maryland.
What the Case Actually Says About Reading a Constitution
There’s a point Marshall makes that goes past the legal holding and gets at something more basic.
A constitution is not a statute. It doesn’t work like a tax code or a criminal law that lists every covered situation. It sets principles and leaves room for judgment. Marshall argued that reading the Constitution like a rigid list misunderstands what kind of document it is. You ask whether the goal is legitimate and whether the method is appropriate. You don’t ask whether the specific action was written down in 1787.
That interpretive choice is exactly why McCulloch still gets argued. People who think the Constitution should be read narrowly, with power staying with states unless clearly given away, genuinely believe Marshall got it wrong. People who think the federal government needs flexibility to address national problems that no one anticipated in 1787 think he got it right. There’s no easy resolution between those two positions. Both are grounded in real constitutional text and real history.
What happened to McCulloch personally? He was convicted of fraud and embezzlement connected to the Baltimore branch. Maryland’s tax was invalidated, but the man who refused to pay it had been stealing from the bank the whole time. The case that shaped American constitutional law was brought by someone who probably deserved to be in trouble with somebody.
The bank itself was dismantled in 1832 when Jackson killed its rechartering. But the doctrine Marshall built around it has now outlasted the bank by nearly two centuries.
Common Questions About McCulloch v. Maryland
What were the two central questions in the case?
The Court had to decide whether Congress had constitutional authority to create a national bank, and whether Maryland could impose a tax on it. In both cases, the federal government was successful.
What is the Necessary and Proper Clause?
That’s the last sentence in Article I, Section 8, that allows Congress to enact laws it deems suitable and necessary for the exercise of its other expressed powers. In McCulloch v. Maryland, Marshall’s definition of “necessary” was liberal, “necessary” meaning useful or appropriate, not necessarily required, allowing Congress to legislate on issues not specifically listed in the Constitution.
Why couldn’t Maryland tax the federal bank?
Under the Supremacy Clause, federal law is in effect over state law. In McCulloch v. Maryland, Marshall contended that if the States were permitted to tax those institutions, any one State would be able effectively to annihilate what it had created for the benefit of all the States. This ran contrary to the system of government the Constitution had set up.
What are implied powers?
They are implied powers within Congress that derive from the powers enumerated in the Constitution. In McCulloch v. Maryland, McCulloch argued that these implied powers were legitimate when they are used to further a constitutionally approved and necessary purpose, but not when they are used for an illegitimate purpose.
Does this case still matter today?
The short answer is YES. Consistently. Any federal law or agency that isn’t directly named in Article I relies partly on the McCulloch framework. The Federal Reserve, the FDA, OSHA, and most of the modern regulatory state exist under authority that traces back to how Marshall read the necessary and proper clause in this case.
Is it settled law? The holding is settled. The debate behind it isn’t. Critics have challenged it since 1819, and the core tension between federal power and state authority remains one of the most active fault lines in American constitutional law.
Disclaimer: Written by a practicing Advocate with experience in civil and constitutional matters. This blog does not constitute legal advice; it is rather for educational purposes. If you need legal help, consult an attorney in your jurisdiction.
Connect with me on LinkedIn for legal drafting, legal research and other legal matters!