Which case affirmed the federal government's authority to create a national bank and upheld federal supremacy over state taxes?

• A. Marbury v. Madison (1803)
• B. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
• C. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
• D. Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

Answer: (B)

The main idea is that the federal government can use powers that aren’t spelled out word-for-word in the Constitution if they are implied as a means to carry out its enumerated powers, and that federal laws trump state laws when they clash. In McCulloch v. Maryland, the Court held that Congress could charter a national bank because creating a bank is a legitimate means to manage the nation’s finances—borrowing, paying debts, regulating currency, and supporting economic stability—even though a bank isn’t explicitly listed in the Constitution. This uses the Necessary and Proper Clause to recognize implied powers. At the same time, the Court reinforced federal supremacy by striking down Maryland’s attempt to tax the Bank, saying that allowing states to tax federal instruments would give states power to destroy federal authority. The combination—that Congress may act through implied means to achieve its constitutional ends, and that federal laws trump state laws—defines the ruling.

For context, other famous cases deal with related but different issues: Marbury v. Madison established judicial review, Gibbons v. Ogden upheld broad federal power to regulate interstate commerce, and Wickard v. Filburn extended Congress’s reach under the Commerce Clause. None of those focus on upholding a national bank or federal supremacy over a state tax in the way McCulloch v. Maryland does.