Fletcher v. Peck established that laws impairing contracts made in good faith by states are invalid due to which clause?

Fletcher v. Peck established that laws impairing contracts made in good faith by states are invalid due to which clause?

• A. Contract Clause
• B. Commerce Clause
• C. Supremacy Clause
• D. Due Process Clause

Answer: (A)

The protection of contract obligations against state action is at the heart of this question. Fletcher v. Peck holds that a state cannot pass laws that impair the obligation of contracts, even if the contract was formed in good faith or under questionable circumstances. The case involved a Georgia land deal that had been supposedly granted under earlier authority, and later the state passed a law invalidating those contracts. The Supreme Court struck that law down, anchoring the ruling in the Contract Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 10), which prohibits states from passing any law that impairs the obligation of contracts. This establishes that once a contract exists, its obligation cannot be retroactively undermined by state legislation. This isn’t about interstate commerce, federal supremacy, or due process in this context, which is why those other clauses don’t fit the issue at hand.

The protection of contract obligations against state action is at the heart of this question. Fletcher v. Peck holds that a state cannot pass laws that impair the obligation of contracts, even if the contract was formed in good faith or under questionable circumstances. The case involved a Georgia land deal that had been supposedly granted under earlier authority, and later the state passed a law invalidating those contracts. The Supreme Court struck that law down, anchoring the ruling in the Contract Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 10), which prohibits states from passing any law that impairs the obligation of contracts. This establishes that once a contract exists, its obligation cannot be retroactively undermined by state legislation.

This isn’t about interstate commerce, federal supremacy, or due process in this context, which is why those other clauses don’t fit the issue at hand.