Marbury v. Madison

Definition

Marbury v. Madison is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1803 that established the principle of judicial review, allowing the Court to invalidate laws and actions that conflict with the Constitution. This case is significant as it set a precedent for the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting the law and checking the powers of the other branches of government.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The case arose when William Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to compel Secretary of State James Madison to deliver his commission as a justice of the peace.
2. Chief Justice John Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court, stating that while Marbury had a right to his commission, the Supreme Court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus under the Judiciary Act of 1789.
3. The decision asserted that it is the duty of the judiciary to interpret what the law is, thus establishing judicial review as a cornerstone of American law.
4. Marbury v. Madison laid the groundwork for the balance of power among the three branches of government by ensuring that no law could stand if it violated the Constitution.
5. This case set a precedent that empowered the Supreme Court to check Congress and the executive branch, influencing how laws are created and interpreted in the United States.

Review Questions

• How did Marbury v. Madison establish the principle of judicial review, and why is this important for American government?
  • Marbury v. Madison established judicial review by asserting that it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to determine whether laws are constitutional. This principle is crucial because it empowers the judiciary to invalidate legislative and executive actions that conflict with constitutional provisions, thereby maintaining a system of checks and balances. This ensures that no branch of government can exceed its constitutional authority, preserving individual rights and preventing tyranny.
• In what ways did Marbury v. Madison impact the relationship between state and federal powers in terms of judicial authority?
  • Marbury v. Madison significantly impacted the relationship between state and federal powers by clarifying that federal courts have the authority to review state laws for compliance with the U.S. Constitution. By establishing judicial review, it allowed federal courts to invalidate state actions that contravened federal law or constitutional rights. This created a stronger framework for federal authority over states, ensuring that state laws do not infringe upon federally protected rights.
• Evaluate how Marbury v. Madison continues to influence contemporary discussions about judicial power and constitutional interpretation.
  • Marbury v. Madison continues to influence contemporary discussions about judicial power by underscoring the importance of an independent judiciary capable of reviewing legislative actions. Debates about judicial activism versus restraint often reference this case, as it raises questions about how broadly or narrowly courts should interpret constitutional provisions. This landmark decision also frames current controversies surrounding judicial appointments and their implications for future constitutional interpretations, demonstrating its enduring relevance in shaping American legal philosophy.

Related terms

Judicial Review: The power of courts to assess whether a law or governmental action is in accordance with the Constitution.

Supreme Court:

The highest court in the United States, which has ultimate jurisdiction over all federal and state court cases involving issues of federal law.

Constitutional Interpretation: The process by which courts understand and apply the Constitution's provisions to various legal issues.