Marbury v. Madison Establishes Judicial Review and Supreme Court Power Expansion

The U.S. Supreme Court issues its landmark decision in Marbury v. Madison, with Chief Justice John Marshall declaring for the first time that federal courts possess the power to strike down laws passed by Congress that violate the Constitution. Marshall writes that “A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void,” establishing the doctrine of judicial review—a power not explicitly granted to courts in the Constitution itself. The case arises from the midnight judges controversy when William Marbury, denied his commission as justice of the peace by the Jefferson administration, sues Secretary of State James Madison seeking a writ of mandamus compelling delivery of his appointment.

Marshall’s opinion finds that section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutionally expanded the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what Article III permits, and therefore strikes down that portion of the statute. The decision cleverly denies Marbury his commission (avoiding a confrontation with Jefferson that the Court would likely lose) while simultaneously asserting sweeping judicial supremacy over constitutional interpretation. Marshall completes “the triangular structure of checks and balances” by establishing judicial review, though critics note this represents the judiciary checking the elected branches while remaining largely unchecked itself except through the difficult impeachment process.

The Marbury decision fundamentally expands Supreme Court power by making unelected judges with lifetime tenure the final arbiters of constitutional meaning, establishing a form of institutional capture where nine individuals can nullify laws passed by elected representatives. Although no other federal law is declared unconstitutional until Dred Scott (1857), the precedent enables the Court to eventually invalidate both progressive legislation and civil rights protections while entrenching elite economic interests. Marshall’s assertion of judicial review creates the foundation for counter-majoritarian judicial supremacy that persists throughout American history, from Lochner-era invalidation of labor protections to Citizens United’s destruction of campaign finance limits. The decision demonstrates how institutional actors expand their own power through self-serving interpretations of ambiguous constitutional text, establishing patterns of unelected elite control that can override democratic decision-making for generations.