## Facts

- Delaware incorporated the Black Bird Creek Marsh Company and authorized it to build a dam across Black Bird Creek to drain adjacent marshlands.
- Black Bird Creek was subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and was navigable, so the dam obstructed passage and limited prior navigation use.
- Thomas Willson and others owned the sloop *Sally*, federally licensed for the coastal and coasting trade under federal navigation laws.
- While attempting to pass the creek, Willson broke and damaged the dam to proceed.
- The Company sued Willson for trespass in Delaware court and obtained a damages judgment.
- Willson argued the state statute was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and inconsistent with federal navigation licensing laws.

## Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court had appellate jurisdiction under § 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 to review a state judgment sustaining a state statute challenged as unconstitutional under federal law.
2. Whether Delaware’s authorization of a dam across a navigable tidal creek violated the Commerce Clause, either by conflicting with federal navigation laws or by impermissibly burdening interstate commerce absent congressional action.

## Decision

- The Court held it had jurisdiction because the state court’s judgment necessarily sustained the validity of the state statute against a federal constitutional challenge.
- The Court affirmed the Delaware judgment and upheld the statute authorizing the dam.
- The Court concluded that, in the absence of congressional legislation regulating the creek or otherwise controlling state action in this setting, the state measure was not repugnant to the Commerce Clause and did not conflict with federal navigation laws.

## Legal Principles

- Supreme Court review under § 25 lies when the record shows that a state court upheld a state law whose constitutionality under the federal Constitution was in question, even if the federal issue was not formally framed in precise terms.
- A state may enact local health and land-improvement measures affecting navigation when the measure does not collide with the Constitution or an act of Congress.
- Obstruction of navigation on a navigable waterway is not, by itself, a Commerce Clause violation; invalidation requires conflict with federal law or an impermissible burden on commerce in an area where federal authority has been exercised.
- A federal coasting or navigation license does not automatically create an unconditional right to unobstructed passage that displaces nonconflicting state regulation of local waterways.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Delaware’s authorization of a dam across a navigable tidal creek as a permissible local police measure and affirmed trespass damages against the vessel owners, because Congress had enacted no controlling regulation and the state law did not conflict with federal law or the Commerce Clause.


Willson v. Black Bird Creek Marsh Co., 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 245 (1829)