<P> In this case, the Court affirmed that the Virginia Supreme Court correctly interpreted a federal statute that had established a lottery in Washington D.C. Like the Jefferson administration in Marbury, the State of Virginia technically won this case even though the case set a precedent consolidating the Court's power . </P> <P> Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) overturned a monopoly granted by the New York state legislature to certain steamships operating between New York and New Jersey . Daniel Webster argued that the Constitution, by empowering Congress to regulate interstate commerce, implied that states do not have any concurrent power to regulate interstate commerce . Chief Justice Marshall avoided that issue about the exclusivity of the federal commerce power because that issue was not necessary to decide the case . Instead, Marshall relied on an actual, existing federal statute for licensing ships, and he held that that federal law was a legitimate exercise of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce, so the federal law superseded the state law granting the monopoly . </P> <P> Webster was at that time a member of Congress, but nevertheless pressed his constitutional views on behalf of clients . After he won this case, he bragged that Marshall absorbed his arguments "as a baby takes in his mother's milk", even though Marshall had actually dismissed Webster's main argument . </P> <P> In the course of his opinion in this case, Marshall began the careful work of determining what the phrase "commerce...among the several states" means in the Constitution . He stressed that one must look at whether the commerce in question has wide - ranging effects, suggesting that commerce which does "affect other states" may be interstate commerce, even if it does not cross state lines . Of course, the steamboats in this case did cross a state line, but Marshall suggested that his opinion had a broader scope than that . Indeed, Marshall's opinion in Gibbons would be cited by the Supreme Court much later when it upheld aspects of the New Deal in cases like Wickard v. Filburn in 1942 . But, the opinion in Gibbons can also be read more narrowly . After all, Marshall also wrote: </P>

Who was the colonial leader that believed in true justice and rights