Cooley v. Board of Wardens
Citation and Court
53 U.S. (12 How.) 299 (1851) — Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
A Pennsylvania law required ships entering or leaving Philadelphia harbor to hire a local pilot or pay a fine equal to half a pilot’s fee. Aaron Cooley paid the fine rather than hire a pilot and then sued to recover it, arguing the Pennsylvania pilotage law was an unconstitutional regulation of interstate and foreign commerce reserved to Congress.
Issue
Whether a state law requiring the use of local pilots in a particular harbor is an unconstitutional regulation of commerce when Congress has not acted to displace it.
Holding
Pennsylvania’s pilotage law is constitutional. States may regulate local aspects of commerce — particularly those requiring local knowledge and uniformity at the local level — even in the absence of federal legislation, as long as Congress has not affirmatively occupied the field.
Rule / Doctrine
Selective exclusiveness doctrine: the Commerce Clause does not exclusively vest regulatory power in Congress over all aspects of commerce. Some subjects, by their nature, demand a single uniform national rule (exclusively federal), while others are local in character and may be regulated by states until Congress acts. Pilotage in local harbors falls in the latter category.
Significance
Cooley is the earliest major dormant Commerce Clause case and established the selective exclusiveness framework that preceded the modern Pike balancing and discrimination tests. It recognized that states retain concurrent regulatory power over matters of local concern, a principle that continues to inform Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine.