Hencely v. Fluor Corp. · ¶59

Five years later, the Court's decision in another landmark case involving the Second Bank of the United States reaffirmed the principle of implied preemption recognized in Mc- Culloch. Writing for the Court in Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738 (1824), Chief Justice Marshall explained that some state incursions into federal operations are “so objectionable” that federal law need not say anything to preempt them. Id., at 865. For example, the “collectors of the revenue, the carriers of the mail, the mint establishment, and all those institutions which are public . . . are protected, while in the line of duty; and yet this protection is not expressed in any act of Congress.” Ibid. Thus, Ohio, like Maryland in McCulloch, was barred from taxing the Bank simply because of the Constitution's delineation of federal and state authority.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.