Which case dealt with the authority to charter a national bank and whether states could tax federal property?

• A. McCulloch v. Maryland
• B. Gibbons v. Ogden
• C. Marbury v. Madison
• D. Barron v. Baltimore

Answer: (A)

The key idea here is how the federal government can exercise powers beyond what’s explicitly listed in the Constitution, and how that power interacts with state authority. McCulloch v. Maryland addresses both questions at once. The Court decided that Congress has implied powers through the Necessary and Proper Clause, so it could establish a national bank as a practical means to manage the nation’s finances even though creating a bank isn’t spelled out in the text. At the same time, the decision held that states cannot tax federal institutions, because doing so would undermine the federal government and violate the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. This case thus strengthens federal authority and confirms that state laws cannot impede legitimate federal operations.

For context, this ruling came from the early republic, with Chief Justice John Marshall articulating that federal laws are supreme over conflicting state laws, and that the government’s powers include those needed to carry out its constitutional duties. A famous line from the decision—that the power to tax involves the power to destroy—captures why state taxation of a federal entity is impermissible.

Other landmark cases you’ll encounter separate these ideas: Gibbons v. Ogden focuses on the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce; Marbury v. Madison establishes judicial review; Barron v. Baltimore discusses limits on applying the Bill of Rights to states.