ABSTRACT
In the landmark case of Fletcher v. Peck, 10 US 87, Marshall ruled that the Contracts Clause covered every description of contract and prevented a state from breaching its own agreements. Despite differences in outlook between Marshall and his successor as chief justice, Roger B. Taney, the Supreme Court continued to apply the Contracts Clause vigorously. In Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 36 US 420, for example, Taney maintained that state grants and charters must be strictly construed to facilitate progress, and he rejected the notion that implied corporate privileges were protected by the Contracts Clause. The attempted repudiation of bonded debt by localities in the late nineteenth century was repeatedly challenged as a violation of the Contracts Clause. Despite the high regard for the sanctity of contract manifest in the decisions, the Contracts Clause gradually diminished in importance during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
