Final answer:
The Supreme Court case Gibbons v. Ogden clarified the federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce, invalidating a New York monopoly on steamboat operations and establishing that federal law supersedes state law in such matters.
Step-by-step explanation:
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
The Supreme Court case Gibbons v. Ogden in 1824 was significant for interpreting the commerce clause of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and determining the extent of federal authority in regulating interstate commerce. This case originated when New York granted exclusive rights for steamboat operation to Fulton and Livingston, who then licensed Thomas Gibbons. When Adam Ogden, who did not receive a permit, sued Gibbons, the case escalated to the Supreme Court, raising the issue of whether state law can supersede federal law. The final ruling by Chief Justice Marshall stated that the power to regulate interstate commerce belonged solely to Congress, reinforcing the principle that when there is a conflict, federal law trumps state law under the supremacy clause.
Furthermore, through a broad interpretation of interstate commerce as "commercial intercourse" among states, the Court's decision permitted federal regulation of navigation, striking down the New York monopoly. Collectively, cases like McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden supported a broad interpretation of the federal government's power, effectively allowing for national involvement in economic development and reinforcing federal supremacy over conflicting state legislation.