Which case upheld the federal government's power to create a national bank and invalidated a state tax on it?

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

Answer: (A)

The key idea is that Congress can use its implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause to carry out its enumerated powers, and federal law is supreme over state law when the federal action is within those powers. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had the authority to create a national bank as a means to execute its constitutional powers, such as borrowing money and regulating currency and commerce. The court also held that a state cannot tax a federal instrument, because allowing such taxation would allow states to undermine or destroy federal institutions, violating the Supremacy Clause. So the national bank was constitutional, while the state tax on it was not.

For context, other cases deal with related questions about the reach of federal power, but in different ways. Gibbons v. Ogden centers on regulating interstate commerce; United States v. Lopez introduces limits on Congress’s commerce power, and Wickard v. Filburn addresses how broadly the commerce power can be applied. The question here specifically points to the bank and the invalidated state tax, which is the McCulloch v. Maryland decision.