Which case held that federal power is supreme over state power and supported the use of implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause?

Which case held that federal power is supreme over state power and supported the use of implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause?

• A. Gibbons v. Ogden
• B. McCulloch v. Maryland
• C. United States v. Lopez
• D. Wickard v. Filburn

Answer: (B)

Federal power over states and the idea of implied powers through the Necessary and Proper Clause are at the heart of this ruling. In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Supreme Court held that Congress has implied powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution and that these powers are legitimate so long as they are needed to carry out its constitutional duties. The case also established that federal law is supreme over state law, striking down Maryland’s attempt to tax a federal bank. By upholding the bank as constitutional and insisting that states cannot obstruct federal instruments, the Court grounded the use of implied powers in a framework of national supremacy. This decision widened what Congress can do and reinforced that federal authority takes precedence over state authority. Other cases deal with related questions—like Gibbons v. Ogden focusing on interstate commerce, or Lopez and Wickard shaping later limits or expansions of federal power—but McCulloch is the core ruling that ties together supremacy and implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Federal power over states and the idea of implied powers through the Necessary and Proper Clause are at the heart of this ruling. In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Supreme Court held that Congress has implied powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution and that these powers are legitimate so long as they are needed to carry out its constitutional duties. The case also established that federal law is supreme over state law, striking down Maryland’s attempt to tax a federal bank. By upholding the bank as constitutional and insisting that states cannot obstruct federal instruments, the Court grounded the use of implied powers in a framework of national supremacy. This decision widened what Congress can do and reinforced that federal authority takes precedence over state authority. Other cases deal with related questions—like Gibbons v. Ogden focusing on interstate commerce, or Lopez and Wickard shaping later limits or expansions of federal power—but McCulloch is the core ruling that ties together supremacy and implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause.