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

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Bill of Rights spent more than a century largely ignored by the courts

When ratified in 1791, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, which exercised little direct control over daily life. It played a limited role in early constitutional law until the 20th century, when legal advocates began using it to challenge state and local laws.

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 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.

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.

Gibbons v. Ogden expanded federal power over interstate commerce

In 1824, the Supreme Court unanimously invalidated a New York steamboat monopoly, ruling that navigation between states constitutes interstate commerce. Chief Justice John Marshall held that Congress has authority over such commerce and that conflicting state laws are void under the supremacy clause.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the foundation of the federal justice system

Passed by the First Congress, the Judiciary Act of 1789 established the federal court system, the Office of the Attorney General, and the US Marshals Service—the first law concerning national law enforcement and legal administration.

William Marbury was a wealthy Federalist insider

Marbury was a prosperous Georgetown businessman, bank director, and slaveholder with close ties to the Federalists. His appointment as a justice of the peace, which was never delivered, sparked the Marbury v. Madison case.

Thousands of state voting changes have been federally blocked since the Voting Rights Act

Since 1965, federal oversight has blocked thousands of state-level voting changes—including redistricting plans—by requiring approval for measures that could affect minority representation, a process scaled back by the Supreme Court in 2013.

Thousands of constitutional amendments have failed

Of nearly 12,000 proposed constitutional amendments, only 27 were ratified. This article highlights radical failed proposals that would have renamed the country, abolished the presidency, capped personal wealth, or fundamentally rewritten how American democracy works.

Dive deep into Madison's role in promoting the Constitution through the Federalist Papers

James Madison used the Federalist Papers to shape ratification debates, explain the Constitution's design, and argue that a large republic could safeguard liberty. This podcast explores his pivotal role in the ratification of the Constitution.

Trace how the Bill of Rights, inspired by centuries of political theory, took shape between 1774 and 1789.

This interactive resource from the National Constitution Center traces the complex drafting process behind the Bill of Rights, showing how state proposals and revisions evolved into the first 10 amendments.

The US Constitution has been amended 27 different times since its ratification

Dive deeper into each amendment to the Constitution with resources provided by the National Constitution Center. This website features podcasts, videos, and other web resources for each of the amendments, examining their creation and their impact on today’s political and social landscape.

McCulloch v. Maryland upheld implied powers and blocked states from taxing the federal government

In 1819, McCulloch v. Maryland confirmed that Congress may use implied powers under the necessary and proper clause and ruled that states cannot tax federal institutions, reaffirming the supremacy of the federal government within its constitutionally delegated powers.

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.

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.

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.

The first test of America's war powers came just a decade after the Constitution was ratified

During the undeclared Quasi-War with France in 1800, the Supreme Court ruled in Bas v. Tingy that Congress had authorized a valid "imperfect war" through statutes alone, without a formal declaration, establishing that there is a legal spectrum between peace and declared war.

Cases during John Marshall's tenure defined the principles of federal Indian law

During Marshall's tenure, three landmark rulings—Johnson v. M'Intosh, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, and Worcester v. Georgia—established foundational doctrines of federal Indian law, defining tribal sovereignty, limiting state authority, and placing primary responsibility for Native affairs in the federal government.

Roe v. Wade recognized a constitutional right to abortion until Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned it

For decades, the Supreme Court shaped abortion access through constitutional rulings, from Roe's recognition of a right to abortion to Dobbs' returning regulatory power to the states. This explainer tracks key cases, impacts, and current justices' views.