Also known as: coin · mint
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
The constitutional authority vested in Congress to mint coins and regulate their value together with the value of foreign coin.
Congress passes a statute directing the Treasury to mint a new silver dollar and set its face value. Michael Miller, a coin dealer, challenges the statute in federal court. The court upholds the statute because Article I Section 8 grants Congress the power to coin money and fix its value.
The legislature of State X enacts a law authorizing the state to issue paper notes denominated in dollars and declaring them legal tender. Melissa Mills, a taxpayer, sues to enjoin enforcement. The court strikes down the statute because Article I Section 10 forbids any state from coining money or emitting bills of credit.
Congress charters a national bank that issues circulating notes. A state attempts to tax those notes out of existence. The court holds that the federal power to coin money and regulate its value includes the power to create institutions that issue currency backed by the United States.
In April 1816, Congress passed an act entitled "An act to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States." The Bank organized in Philadelphia pursuant to the act and in 1817 established a branch in the City of Baltimore that from that time until May 1, 1818, transacted business by issuing bank notes, discounting promissory notes, and performing other customary operations under the authority of the corporate body established at Philadelphia. On February 11, 1818, the General Assembly of Maryland passed an act entitled "An act to impose a tax on all banks, or branches thereof, in the State of Maryland, not chartered by the legislature." The Maryland statute provided that any such branch could not lawfully issue notes except upon stamped paper of specified denominations furnished by the Treasurer of the Western Shore, or could relieve itself from that requirement by paying annually in advance to the Treasurer the sum of $15,000. Officers offending against the provisions forfeited $500 for each offense, and persons circulating unstamped notes forfeited up to $100, with penalties recoverable by indictment or action of debt. James W. McCulloch, cashier of the Baltimore branch, on the days set forth in the declaration issued bank notes to George Williams in Baltimore in part payment of a promissory note discounted by the branch, and those notes were not issued on stamped paper as prescribed by the Maryland act; neither the bank nor its branch had paid the $15,000 in advance before or since the issuance of those notes. John James, who sued as well for himself as for the State of Maryland, brought an action of debt against McCulloch in the County Court of Baltimore County to recover the penalties. The parties submitted a statement of agreed facts to the court, which rendered judgment against McCulloch; the Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed that judgment, and McCulloch brought the cause to the Supreme Court of the United States by writ of error.
View caseDuring wartime, naval forces capture a vessel carrying foreign gold coins. The prize court must determine the value of the coins in United States dollars. The court applies the constitutional grant of power to regulate the value of foreign coin when fixing the award.
Open the case page for the full write-up.
View caseA state requires all license plates to bear the state motto. Mustafa Mahmoud refuses on the ground that the motto endorses a religious message. The court analyzes whether the state's action trenches on federal authority over coinage and currency symbols.
Since 1969 New Hampshire has required that noncommercial vehicles bear license plates embossed with the state motto "Live Free or Die." N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 263:1 (Supp. 1975). A separate statute makes it a misdemeanor knowingly to obscure the figures or letters on any number plate, and the state's highest court has interpreted the term "letters" to include the state motto. Appellees George Maynard and his wife Maxine are followers of the Jehovah's Witnesses faith who consider the New Hampshire state motto repugnant to their moral, religious, and political beliefs. At the time the suit was commenced the Maynards owned two automobiles registered in New Hampshire, a Toyota Corolla and a Plymouth station wagon. Pursuant to their beliefs the Maynards began early in 1974 to cover up the motto on their license plates. On November 27, 1974, Mr. Maynard was issued a citation for violating the obscuring statute. He appeared pro se in Lebanon District Court, entered a plea of not guilty, and was found guilty with a $25 fine whose execution was suspended. On December 28, 1974, he was charged a second time; on January 31, 1975, he was again found guilty, fined $50, and sentenced to six months in the Grafton County House of Corrections with the jail term suspended, but after refusing to pay the fines he served fifteen days in jail. A third violation charged on January 3, 1975, resulted in a guilty finding that was continued for sentence. On March 4, 1975, the Maynards brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against enforcement of the statutes insofar as they required display of the motto and made obscuring it a criminal offense. A single district judge issued a temporary restraining order on March 11, 1975. A three-judge district court was then convened and, after a hearing on the merits, entered an order enjoining the State from arresting and prosecuting the Maynards in the future for covering the motto. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction of the appeal.
View caseCongress enacts a statute prohibiting firearms near schools and justifies the law under its commerce and monetary powers. Marco Marquez is prosecuted and moves to dismiss. The court examines whether the monetary powers extend to regulating local conduct that does not involve coining or regulating the value of money.
In March 1992, Alfonso Lopez, Jr., a twelfth-grade student at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas, arrived at school carrying a concealed .38-caliber handgun and five bullets. Acting on an anonymous tip, school authorities confronted Lopez, who admitted possessing the weapon. Local police arrested him and charged him under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The following day, state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. A federal grand jury indicted him on one count of knowing possession of a firearm at a school zone. Lopez moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute exceeded Congress's power to legislate control over public schools. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the statute was a constitutional exercise of Congress's power to regulate activities affecting commerce because the business of schools affects interstate commerce. After a bench trial, the court found Lopez guilty and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment and two years of supervised release. Lopez appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which reversed the conviction, holding that the statute was beyond Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
View caseArticle I Section 8 expressly grants Congress the power to coin money, regulate the value of that money and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.
Supporting sources
No. Article I Section 10 prohibits any state from coining money or emitting bills of credit.
Supporting sources
Yes. The Supreme Court has held that the power to coin money and regulate its value encompasses the creation of institutions that issue currency backed by the federal government.
Supporting sources
The power to coin money and regulate foreign coin supports the valuation of captured currency in prize proceedings arising under the war powers.
Supporting sources
…beyond a single State's reach. Applying Maryland's principle generally would allow States to tax any federal instrument—mail, mint, patent rights, custom-house papers, judicial process—so as to defeat federal operations. The American people did not intend to make the national Government dependent on the States. The…