On February 24, 1803, the first and most influential supreme court case of America occurred. This case lives in obscurity to most citizens, but without it, the Supreme Court would not have the power it has today. The issue of the case arose from a seemingly simple dispute. It all began during the Election of 1800. When incumbent president John Adams was voted out of office, he created a scheme to keep his party, the Federalists, in control of one of the branches of the government. Adams promoted many Federalists to become circuit judges and justices of peace. This way, the Federalist party could control the Judicial Branch of the government. However, one man that was promised a commission, William Marbury, never received one before Jefferson came into office. Jefferson declared the commission void and told his Secretary of State, James Madison, to not deliver the commission. Marbury sued Madison, and the court case began. The Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison changed America for the better because it established the principle of judicial review, increased the power of the Supreme Court, and protected the rights of citizens.
First of all, the case created the principle of judicial review. Judicial review states that the Supreme Court can declare an act of the government “unconstitutional”. This gave the Supreme Court power, and proved that the Judicial branch was a separate entity from the other branches. This principle arose from the court case itself. When the case was brought to the Supreme Court, Marshall realized something. The law Congress passed which allowed the Supreme Court to review this case expanded the power of the Supreme Court beyond what was specified in the Constitution. Marshall realized that went against the Constitution, and struck down that part of the law, creating the first example of judicial review. In Marshall’s own words, “The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written.” Due to the fact that the Supreme Court no longer had jurisdiction of this case, the Supreme Court could not make Madison deliver Marbury’s commission.
Along with a legal problem, the case created a great political dilemma for Marshall. Ruling with Marbury and asking Madison and Jefferson to deliver Marbury’s commission would appear weak, because Madison and Jefferson could just as easily ignore the order. This would be a crippling blow to the new court, who needed to appear strong and powerful. However, by siding with Madison, Marshall, a Federalist, would be handing Jefferson and Madison, Democratic-Republicans, a free victory, and would look like the Supreme Court was backing down. Marshall’s next decision is single-handedly the most important legal decision in the history of the United States.
John Marshall
Marshall, figured out a way that the Supreme Court didn’t have to make a decision on the case. Section 13 of the Judiciary Act, the act that allowed the case to take place, expanded the role of the Supreme Court beyond what was specified in the Constitution. Declaring the act unconstitutional, Marshall ended Marbury v. Madison due to the fact that the case was beyond the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. In the words of political historian Robert McCloskey, “[Marbury v. Madison] is a masterwork of indirection, a brilliant example of Marshall’s capacity to sidestep danger while seeming to court it.”
Marbury v. Madison also increased the power of the Supreme Court tremendously. By setting the precedent of allowing the Supreme Court to strike down acts of the government, Marshall single-handedly set apart the Supreme Court from other branches of the government. This allowed for the Supreme Court to strike down acts of the government that could potentially harm the citizens of America. This power, however, has not gone without backlash. One argument is that the courts sometimes do not represent the beliefs of the people because judges are not elected. This goes against the principle of democracy. As Jeremy Waldron said in the Yale Law Journal, “Second, it argues that, quite apart from the outcomes it generates, judicial review is democratically illegitimate.” Waldron also states that the people may not be better off with the Supreme Court, as there is no guarantee that the Court would be any better than any political institution, such as Congress. In his words, “…it argues that there is no reason to suppose that rights are better protected by this practice than they would be by democratic legislatures.” However, it is hard for many lawyers and jurists to argue with Marshall’s statement in his verdict, “that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.” This shows the power of judicial review as being able to strike down pretty much any law to protect citizens.
Arguably the most famous example of judicial review protecting the rights of citizens is the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education. Brown v. Board of Education was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that outlawed racial segregation in very public schools. The case generally was filed on behalf of Linda Brown, an African-American girl who had to walk six blocks to her school bus stop in order to get to her segregated black school while white children were able to mostly walk to their school bus stop right outside their homes. The court ruled unanimously that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” The Brown v Board of Education case is one of the most important cases in US history because it overturned the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision, which had allowed for “separate but equal” facilities for African Americans and whites, paving the way for integration across all aspects of American life in a big way. This court case was a great example of judicial review, because it protected the rights and quality of life of African-Americans.
Another example of judicial review is the court case Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda v. Arizona is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. It is one of the most influential cases in American history and has shaped modern law enforcement practices in the US. The case revolved around Ernesto Miranda, who was arrested on March 13, 1963, for kidnapping and rape in Phoenix, Arizona. The court ruled that Miranda’s confession could not be used as evidence because he had not been informed of his rights. The court ruled 5–4 that Miranda’s confession should not have been admitted as evidence because he had not been informed of his right to remain silent or have an attorney present during questioning. The case was brought to the Supreme Court by Ernesto Miranda, who had been convicted of kidnapping and rape based on his confession, which he later claimed was coerced. The court ruled that Miranda’s Fifth Amendment right to due process had been violated because he had not been informed of his right to remain silent or have an attorney present during questioning. The Supreme Court ruled that statements made by a person to police officers after being taken into custody are admissible as evidence in court only if the person was first informed of their Constitutional rights, which are: (1) to remain silent; (2) to have an attorney present during questioning; and (3) to be free from self-incrimination. These are a few examples of how judicial review protects the rights of citizens.
To sum it all up, Marbury v. Madison changed America for the better by creating the principle of judicial review, increased the power of the Supreme Court, and protected the rights of citizens. Judicial review was created to prevent the Supreme Court from making a difficult decision that would either give a win to the opposing political party or make the court seem weak. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to strike down an act of the government due to the act violating the Constitution. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court more power, and with that power, the Supreme Court protects the rights of citizens. Should the Supreme Court have this much power?
Note from the author: This article was written in 2022 on my old blog on medium. I am reposting it here for archival purposes. This article has been modified to fit the new blog.