fbpx

Judicial Review and Marbury v. Madison

Question 01 /21
0 pt

Should we abolish judicial review to stop courts from dictating laws?

vote to see results
Loading ... Loading …

Origins of Judicial Review

Judicial review in the United States begins with Chief Justice John Marshall in the early 1800s. The 1800 presidential election saw John Adams replaced by Thomas Jefferson, with the Federalists making last-minute “midnight appointments” before leaving office.

William Marbury’s undelivered judicial commission led to the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison. Marbury sought the Supreme Court’s intervention against Secretary of State James Madison for his commission.

Marshall used this opportunity to establish judicial review, an idea not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but hinted at in Article III and the Supremacy Clause. Critics argue the Constitution doesn’t directly address judicial review, but the concept wasn’t entirely new. English courts had exercised similar powers, and America’s framers saw it as a tool to keep legislatures in check.

Marbury v. Madison became foundational in American legal history, cementing judicial review as a key aspect of constitutional interpretation and governance.

Official portrait of Chief Justice John Marshall in his judicial robes

Marbury v. Madison Case Details

Marbury v. Madison arose from the political transition between Presidents John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. William Marbury, appointed by Adams, didn’t receive his commission due to the administrative changeover. He sued James Madison, Jefferson’s Secretary of State, invoking the Judiciary Act of 1789 to compel delivery of his commission.

Chief Justice Marshall faced three questions:

  1. Did Marbury have a right to the commission?
  2. Was there a legal remedy?
  3. Could the Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus?

Marshall confirmed Marbury’s right to the commission but declared Section 13 of the Judiciary Act unconstitutional, as it granted powers to the court beyond those specified in the Constitution. This established judicial review while avoiding direct conflict with the executive branch.

The case wasn’t just about Marbury’s commission; it defined the judiciary’s role in interpreting the Constitution and ensuring each branch stayed within its prescribed limits.

Marshall’s Decision and Its Impact

Marshall’s decision in Marbury v. Madison established judicial review as a cornerstone of American law. He asserted the judiciary’s authority to interpret the Constitution while avoiding direct confrontation with the executive branch.

By declaring Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, Marshall affirmed that statutes couldn’t supersede the Constitution. He transformed a potential defeat for Marbury into a victory for judicial independence.

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is." – Chief Justice John Marshall

This decision solidified the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government, tasked with guarding the Constitution’s supremacy. Marshall’s legacy lies not in Marbury’s commission but in establishing judicial review as a fundamental principle of American constitutional law.

The U.S. Constitution with scales of justice symbolizing judicial review

Constitutional Basis and Criticisms

The Constitution’s silence on judicial review sparks ongoing debate. Critics point to this absence as evidence it wasn’t intended, while supporters find justification in Article III’s “judicial Power” and the Supremacy Clause.

Originalists are split. Some argue the framers intentionally left room for judicial review, while others contend such a significant power would have been explicitly stated if intended.

Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist No. 78 is often cited as support for judicial review, portraying courts as protectors against legislative overreach. Critics counter that relying on such interpretations ignores potential changes in legal landscape since the 18th century.

The debate extends to broader questions of judicial power, accountability, and democracy. Supporters view judicial review as a necessary check on power, while detractors argue it gives unelected judges too much influence over constitutional interpretation.

Ultimately, the legitimacy of judicial review remains a contentious issue, challenging interpreters to balance judicial authority with democratic principles in the ongoing quest for governmental equilibrium.

Reenactment of Founding Fathers debating the Constitution

Judicial Review in Practice

Marbury v. Madison established judicial review, but subsequent cases expanded its impact. In 1857, Dred Scott v. Sandford inflamed the slavery issue. Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 used judicial review to overturn “separate but equal” and dismantle legal racial segregation.

Roe v. Wade in 1973 showed how judicial review can affect society through rulings on abortion rights. Bush v. Gore in 2000 demonstrated the Court’s influence on politics when it decided a presidential election. Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 interpreted the Constitution to include same-sex marriage rights.

Critics argue judicial review allows unelected judges to dictate social norms, calling it judicial overreach. Supporters claim it’s necessary to align law and society with constitutional ideals.

Judicial review continues to shape American law and society, balancing freedom and order as it interprets the Constitution.

Modern Supreme Court Justices seated at the bench

Judicial review remains a key element in American governance, cementing the judiciary’s role in constitutional interpretation. This principle, originating from Marbury v. Madison, maintains its impact on the balance of power, ensuring the Constitution’s supremacy in legal matters.

Constitutional Basis for Judicial Review

While the Constitution does not explicitly mention judicial review, several provisions support its existence:

  • Article III, Section 2 extends judicial power to cases arising under the Constitution
  • Article VI establishes the Constitution as the “supreme Law of the Land”
  • The Supremacy Clause binds judges to the Constitution over conflicting laws

These provisions imply that applying the Constitution is part of the “judicial Power” granted to federal courts.

Historical Context and Framers’ Intent

Many of the Constitution’s framers anticipated the Supreme Court’s role in adjudicating the constitutionality of laws and actions. For example:

"It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority."

– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 78

Between the Constitution’s ratification and 1803, federal and state judges struck down at least 31 statutes on constitutional grounds, indicating a general acceptance of judicial review even before Marbury v. Madison.

Importance of Judicial Review

Judicial review serves several crucial functions in the American system:

  1. Enforces constitutional limits on government power
  2. Protects minority rights from majority tyranny
  3. Ensures state and local compliance with the Constitution
  4. Provides a check on unelected officials (e.g., police, prison guards)

While critics argue that judicial review is anti-democratic, it plays a vital role in upholding constitutional principles and protecting vulnerable groups who may lack political power.

Despite controversies surrounding specific decisions, judicial review remains a fundamental aspect of American constitutionalism, balancing democratic principles with the need for constitutional safeguards.