WHY IT MATTERED
In 1803, interest in Marbury’s commission was prima-
rily about partisan politics. The fight was just one
skirmish in the ongoing battle between Federalists,
such as Adams, and Democratic-Republicans, led by
Jefferson and Madison, which had intensified in the
election of 1800.
When Jefferson won the election, Adams made a
final effort to hinder Jefferson’s promised reforms.
Before leaving office, he tried to fill the government
with Federalists, including the “midnight” justices
such as Marbury. Madison’s refusal to deliver
Marbury’s appointment was part of Jefferson’s subse-
quent effort to rid his administration of Federalists.
Marshall’s opinion in Marbury might seem like a
victory for Jefferson because it denied Marbury his
commission. However, by scolding Madison and
extending the principle of judicial review—the power
of courts to decide whether or not specific laws are
valid—the Court sent a message to Jefferson and to
the Congress that the judiciary had the power to affect
legislation. The Marshall Court, however, never
declared another act of Congress unconstitutional.
HISTORICAL IMPACT
In striking down part of the Judiciary Act, an act of
Congress, Marshall gave new force to the principle of
judicial review. The legacy of John Marshall and of
Marbury is that judicial review has become a corner-
stone of American government. One scholar has called
it “America’s novel contribution to political theory
and the practice of constitutional government.” As
Justice Marshall recognized, judicial review is an essen-
tial component of democratic government; by ensur-
ing that Congress exercises only those powers granted
by the Constitution, the courts protect the sovereign-
ty of the people.
Perhaps more importantly, the principle of judicial
review plays a vital role in our federal system of checks
and balances. With Marbury, the judicial branch
secured its place as one of three coequal branches of
the federal government. The judiciary has no power to
make laws or to carry them out. However, judges have
an important role in deciding what the law is and how
it is carried out.
In City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), for instance, the
Supreme Court declared void the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act of 1993. Members of Congress had
passed the act in an attempt to change the way feder-
al courts apply the First Amendment’s Free Exercise
Clause. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress does
not have the authority to decide what the First
Amendment means—in effect, to define its own pow-
ers. The Court, and not Congress, is the interpreter of
the Constitution.
Through the 1999–2000 term, the Court had ren-
dered 151 decisions striking down—in whole or part—
acts of Congress. It had also voided or restricted the
enforcement of state laws 1,130 times. That the entire
country has with few exceptions obeyed these deci-
sions, no matter how strongly they disagreed, proves
Americans’ faith in the Supreme Court as the protector
of the rule of law.
Launching a New Nation 207
THINKING CRITICALLY
THINKING CRITICALLY
CONNECT TO HISTORY
1. Comparing
Read encyclopedia articles about another
Marshall Court decision, such as Fletcher v. Peck,
Cohens v. Virginia, or Gibbons v. Ogden. Compare
that decision with Marbury and consider what the two
cases and opinions have in common. Write a paragraph
explaining the major similarities between the cases.
SEE SKILLBUILDER HANDBOOK, PAGE R8.
CONNECT TO TODAY
2.
Visit the links for Historic Decisions of the Supreme Court
to research a recent Supreme Court decision involving
judicial review of an act of Congress. Write a case
summary in which you describe the law’s purpose, the
Court’s ruling, and the potential impact of the decision.
IINTERNET ACTIVITY
CLASSZONE.COM
William
Marbury
▼
