A court designed to be the least powerful branch of government became one of the most influential institutions in America.

The powers of the judicial branch have expanded since the nation's founding

Initially, the Supreme Court was seen as the weakest branch, lacking "the power of the sword or the purse," as Alexander Hamilton noted in *Federalist No. 78*. This podcast explores the political conflicts and pivotal decisions that transformed the court into the powerful constitutional authority it is today.

Explore the most impactful Supreme Court cases in US history

Browse by constitutional topic to explore key rulings, their historical impact, and the legal principles they established. Each case includes a summary of the decision, along with notable excerpts from majority and dissenting opinions.

The separation of powers is a pivotal component of the US Constitution

Explore how the three branches interact through the Supreme Court case of US v. Alvarez. The Supreme Court first struck down a law, then Congress and the president later revised it—illustrating how judicial review can reshape legislation and executive action.

Take a deep dive into the constitutional foundations of judicial review

In this episode of "This Constitution," the hosts take a law-focused approach to judicial review—examining its roots in Article III and the supremacy clause, its development through Marbury v. Madison, and the ongoing constitutional debates about whether the court's power strengthens or strains American democracy.

The Supreme Court has greatly expanded executive power in recent years

In Trump v. United States, the court ruled that a former president enjoys absolute immunity for "official acts" in his constitutional core powers. In Trump v. CASA, Inc., the court limited federal courts' ability to block executive enforcement through nationwide injunctions—decisions that shifted power toward the executive branch.

Marbury v. Madison established the Supreme Court's power of judicial review

The 1803 ruling empowered courts to strike down laws that violate the Constitution, permanently expanding the Supreme Court's authority and cementing its role as a coequal branch. This video explains the case and its lasting impact.

Explore the nearly 1,000 laws, regulations, and provisions the court has held unconstitutional since Marbury v. Madison

Over more than two centuries, the Supreme Court has struck down nearly 1,000 federal, state, and local measures—exercising its authority to invalidate laws that conflict with the Constitution and shaping civil rights, the separation of powers, and the scope of government authority.

A single 1803 Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison, gave courts the power to strike down acts of Congress.

John Marshall strengthened the Supreme Court and national authority

As chief justice, John Marshall established the principle of judicial review. He reinforced federal supremacy in key cases, defining the Supreme Court as a powerful arbiter between states and the national government under the US federal system.

The 2025-26 Supreme Court docket is poised to reshape presidential power

As the Supreme Court begins a new term, several major cases could define the scope of presidential authority. The court may rule on President Trump's efforts to control state National Guard units, fire independent officials, impose tariffs, and cut congressionally mandated federal spending.

Marshall used deft political maneuvering to increase the court's power in Marbury v. Madison

This podcast explores how Chief Justice John Marshall avoided a direct clash with President Jefferson by denying William Marbury his commission—while simultaneously declaring that courts can strike down unconstitutional laws—cementing judicial review, and expanding the Supreme Court's authority.

In the US, any court can rule on constitutionality—unlike in most other countries

In the American system, known as diffuse judicial review, federal and state courts at every level may assess whether laws comply with the Constitution, and their decisions are ultimately reviewable by the Supreme Court. Many other democracies, by contrast, reserve constitutional review to specialized constitutional courts.

John Marshall inherited a marginal and largely inactive Supreme Court

By 1801, the court had little institutional authority or public standing. Its first three chief justices served only 11 years combined, and in its first decade, the court decided only 63 cases—none of which struck down a federal or state law.

Watch 2 Supreme Court justices debate how the Constitution should be interpreted

In a 2009 conversation, former Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen G. Breyer lay out competing approaches to constitutional interpretation: Scalia's textualist, strict constructionism versus Breyer's evolutionary view of the Constitution in practice.

John Marshall advanced federal supremacy and judicial review

Marshall's jurisprudence emphasized that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, enforceable by an independent judiciary. Through his court's decisions, he affirmed judicial review, broad implied powers for Congress, and federal authority to override conflicting state laws.

Supreme Court justices serve for life

The Constitution grants Supreme Court justices lifetime appointments to shield them from electoral politics and outside pressure, a design meant to preserve judicial independence but now widely debated due to longer lifespans and partisan balances of the court.

The Supreme Court limited federal judges' power to issue nationwide injunctions in 2025

In a 2025 decision arising from litigation over a presidential order on birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court held that individual federal judges may not nationwide block executive policies—curbing the use of sweeping injunctions and reshaping how constitutional challenges proceed through the courts.

Hear about the individuals who have reshaped the Constitution throughout American history

This multi-episode podcast series from The Washington Post explores how debates, court decisions, and influential individuals have shaped the Constitution as Americans pushed the nation to live up to its founding ideals.

Read the majority opinion that established judicial review

In his opinion in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall argued that a written constitution is "paramount law" and that courts must refuse to enforce statutes that conflict with it. He declared that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is."

The power and influence of the American presidency have expanded significantly over time—far beyond what the founders envisioned.

Courts referee federalism disputes between Congress and the states

Modern federalism is primarily worked out through litigation. The Supreme Court decides disputes in written opinions that explain when federal law preempts state authority, how far Congress's powers extend, and when states may resist.

See how a US Supreme Court justice is nominated and confirmed

A president nominates a Supreme Court justice, the Senate Judiciary Committee conducts public hearings and background vetting, and the full Senate debates and votes on confirmation—a process explained step by step in this video.

Watch scholars debate Supreme Court term limits

In a debate from 2017, legal scholars from across the political spectrum spar over whether justices should serve fixed terms. The discussion highlights bipartisan concerns about judicial independence, accountability, and the risks of lifetime tenure.

Hear leading experts on constitutional law discuss the legacy and impact of Marshall

In this podcast, constitutional scholars Michael Gerhardt (University of North Carolina) and Kevin Walsh (University of Richmond) analyze Marshall's 34-year tenure, assessing his role in establishing judicial review, expanding federal power, and shaping the court's institutional authority.

In recent decades, Supreme Court nominations have grown increasingly contentious and partisan

This video examines the historical shift from bipartisan, civil confirmation hearings to the deeply divisive process seen today. It focuses on the 1987 nomination of Robert Bork, the most recent nominee to be rejected, as an important moment in this transformation.

Explore biographies of every justice who has served on the Supreme Court

This archive traces the whole history of the Supreme Court of the United States through detailed biographies of every justice, outlining their backgrounds, appointments, and the legal eras and decisions they helped shape.

Hear a narrative account of Marshall's 'simple' life and great impact

This podcast traces Marshall's rise from a frontier upbringing to chief justice, examining how a "country boy" born in a log cabin became the most important figure in the early Supreme Court.

Hear about the Supreme Court case so divisive that it caused a justice's breakdown

This podcast episode examines Baker v. Carr, a landmark redistricting ruling that Earl Warren called the most important of his tenure. The case was so divisive it triggered a justice's breakdown and permanently reshaped American democracy.

The Supreme Court has never definitively settled federal war powers

Despite more than two centuries of conflict over war powers, the Supreme Court has consistently avoided defining the precise boundary between congressional and executive authority, leaving that boundary to be contested by the political branches.

Court-packing is the attempt to change the number of Supreme Court justices to shift the balance

Because the Constitution leaves the court's size to Congress, presidents have periodically sought to expand or reshape it. This explainer examines past efforts—including Franklin D. Roosevelt's failed 1937 plan—and why court-packing remains so controversial.

The supremacy clause establishes federal law as the highest authority

The supremacy clause states that the United States Constitution and federal laws enacted under it supersede conflicting state laws, ensuring national authority prevails when federal and state governments disagree.

Debating the Constitution today

The Constitution continues to shape our political and social life today. If you want to understand how today’s political debates connect to the Constitution, check out this podcast from the National Constitution Center. The weekly program features experts from diverse perspectives and explores how constitutional principles shape modern issues.

John Marshall presided over more than 1,100 Supreme Court decisions

During his 34-year tenure, the Marshall court issued 1,129 decisions, including 1,042 unanimous rulings. Marshall authored more than 500 majority opinions—over half of the court's total output during his tenure as chief justice.

Meet the 9 justices currently serving on the US Supreme Court

This resource profiles each sitting justice, detailing their legal backgrounds and career paths, and offers audio clips from oral arguments that reveal how they reason and speak from the bench.

Marbury v. Madison also has implications for presidential power and transitions

This podcast episode explores how Marbury v. Madison extends beyond judicial review, examining its implications for presidential authority, administrative control, and the tensions that arise during transitions of power between outgoing and incoming administrations.

Photography and video are prohibited in the Supreme Court—but artists are not

Because cameras are banned inside the Supreme Court of the United States, courtroom artists document proceedings through sketches. This exhibition features works from 1964 to today, capturing the human drama of landmark cases and shaping how Americans visualize justice.

Learn about the long and contested history of free speech in America

This podcast examines how American free speech protections evolved—from the Founders' debates to landmark Supreme Court rulings—and why the country arrived at one of the most expansive speech regimes in the world.

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once called states 'laboratories of democracy'

Louis Brandeis argued that federalism allows states to experiment with new policies without committing the entire nation, thereby allowing successful ideas to spread while limiting the risks of failure.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer established the framework courts use to evaluate presidential war powers

When Truman seized US steel mills during the Korean War, the Supreme Court ruled that he had overstepped his authority. Justice Jackson's concurring opinion held that presidential power is strongest when Congress authorizes action, uncertain when Congress is silent, and weakest when Congress explicitly refuses authorization.

The US framework of government has influenced the constitutions of many other countries

In 1787, the US Constitution introduced a system built on the separation of powers and individual liberties, including freedom of speech and religion. Though widely influential, its rigidity has made it less of a modern model as countries adopt more adaptable constitutional frameworks.

Parliament is the supreme legal authority under the UK's constitutional system

The principle of "parliamentary sovereignty" holds that the UK Parliament can make or repeal any law, and that courts cannot invalidate its legislation. Judicial bodies can reshape governance, but parliamentary laws remain legally supreme.

The Supreme Court curbed the EPA's power to regulate carbon emissions in 2022

In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the EPA exceeded its authority by requiring industrywide carbon cuts. Chief Justice Roberts' opinion invoked the "major questions" doctrine, which limits the ability of federal agencies to act without explicit congressional approval.

Read SCOTUSblog for daily, nonpartisan coverage of the US Supreme Court

Founded in 2002, SCOTUSblog offers expert analysis from lawyers, professors, and journalists. The blog provides transparent, unbiased explanations of significant cases, real-time updates on decisions, and insights into court nominations and trends.

The Dred Scott decision denied African Americans citizenship, upheld slavery, and marked the first use of judicial review since Marbury v. Madison

This page explores the case, providing information on Dred Scott and his case before the Supreme Court. Explore the implications of one of the most critical cases in the history of the court.

The solicitor general argues the federal government's cases before the Supreme Court

Sometimes called the "10th justice," the solicitor general is the DOJ official responsible for representing the United States before the Supreme Court—deciding which cases the government will appeal, filing briefs, and arguing on behalf of federal interests.

The Constitution grants Congress more powers than the president

Article I outlines detailed congressional powers—taxation, spending, war declarations, and lawmaking—while Article II gives the president limited, broadly defined authority. This design reflects the framers' intention to prevent executive overreach.

Explore jury nullification, the little-known power that lets jurors ignore the law and acquit anyway

When jurors disagree with a law, they can simply vote to acquit regardless of the evidence; however, this practice is rare, and the legal system actively discourages it. This podcast traces its history from a Quaker prayer meeting in London to the LA riots.

Ten lesser-known duties of the US president

The president of the United States is one of the most powerful positions in the world, but what exactly do they oversee? In addition to the obvious tasks of commanding the military, signing laws, and shaping national policy, this article highlights the lesser-known responsibilities of the American president. Naming national monuments and managing the White House beehive are just a few of the jobs you may be surprised to learn about.

The framers feared creating another monarchy through an unchecked executive

Having rebelled against British royal power, the framers deliberately limited the presidency—balancing "energy in the executive" with safeguards against tyranny. Debate at the 1787 Constitutional Convention centered on preventing any return to monarchical rule.

The roots of American law and the jury system trace back to medieval England

King Henry II established a jury of 12 local knights to settle land disputes in the 12th century, and his judges developed national laws common to everyone. American courts inherited this "common law" tradition directly from the English system.