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."

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall clashed over national power and states' rights

Distant cousins Jefferson and Marshall advanced opposing constitutional visions—Jefferson favoring states' rights and local majorities, while Marshall defended broad federal authority and judicial review. Through decisions such as McCulloch v. Maryland, Marshall advanced national supremacy over state resistance.

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.

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.

John Marshall gained national prominence during the XYZ Affair

In 1797, President John Adams sent Marshall to France amid seizures of American ships. French intermediaries demanded loans and bribes before talks, and Marshall refused. Publication of the dispatches fueled the Quasi-War and elevated his reputation in the United States.

John Marshall presided over Aaron Burr's 1807 treason trial

During the 1807 trial of former Vice President Aaron Burr, Marshall required proof of an overt act witnessed by two people to sustain a treason charge. His rulings limited executive influence and reinforced constitutional standards for conviction under Article III.

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 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.

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.

Marshall was briefly secretary of state and chief justice at the same time

Appointed secretary of state by John Adams in 1800, Marshall oversaw foreign policy during disputes with France, Britain, and Spain, including support for the Convention of 1800. For about a month in early 1801, he served as both secretary of state and chief justice.

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.

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.

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.

John Marshall owned enslaved people and ruled against them in slavery cases

Though Marshall wrote that slavery was "contrary to the law of nature," he enslaved nearly 200 people at his death in 1835 and ruled against enslaved claimants in several cases. His will offered conditional emancipation to Robin Spurlock, his first slave.

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.

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.

John Marshall had roughly 1 year of formal schooling

Born in a log cabin, along with many of his siblings, Marshall received only about a year of formal education. He briefly attended lectures at the College of William & Mary before beginning a legal career that ultimately led to the nation's highest court.

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.

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 Barbary Wars were an early test of whether a president could wage war without a formal declaration from Congress

Jefferson sent naval forces against North African pirates without a congressional declaration of war, acting under his own authority. Years later, Madison took the opposite approach and formally sought congressional authorization.

Andrew Jackson reshaped the presidency and expanded executive authority

Andrew Jackson used the veto extensively, removed federal deposits from the national bank, and asserted the president's right to act independently of Congress—shifting the balance of power toward the executive branch.

In 1215, the Magna Carta declared that even the king was not above the law

Forced on King John by rebellious barons, the Magna Carta established limits on royal power and the principle that rulers are subject to law. Discover how this foundational text later influenced the development of constitutional government and modern human rights traditions.

US marshals were the first federal law enforcement officers

Established in 1789, US marshals carried out court orders, served subpoenas, made arrests, and collected fines—serving as the federal government's main law enforcement agency across the states for nearly a century before the creation of the DOJ.

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.

As president, Thomas Jefferson expanded federal power despite opposing centralized authority

Although Jefferson argued for limited national power, his presidency expanded federal authority through actions such as the Louisiana Purchase, territorial governance, and federal enforcement—reflecting a pragmatic departure from his earlier strict interpretation of the Constitution.

The Prize Cases established that the president can respond to an attack without waiting for Congress to act

When Lincoln blockaded Confederate ports at the start of the Civil War without congressional authorization, the Supreme Court upheld his actions, ruling that a president does not initiate war by responding to an attack and need not wait for Congress when the nation is already under threat.

James Madison wrote the first draft of the Bill of Rights

Madison drafted the initial set of constitutional amendments in 1789. The House approved 17 amendments; the Senate reduced them to 12; and 10 were ratified as the Bill of Rights. One rejected amendment was later ratified in 1992 as the 27th Amendment.

The history of bankruptcy in the US dates back to the signing of the Constitution

In 1787, this founding document gave Congress the right to establish nationwide bankruptcy laws. Legislators took advantage of that power in 1800 when they passed the Bankruptcy Act of 1800, the first comprehensive bankruptcy law at the federal level.

Wine was often served at the Marshall court

Marshall was known for his love of alcohol. In the early 1800s, justices (loosely) maintained a rule that they could drink only when it was raining. On a sunny day, Marshall is said to have declared, "Somewhere in our broad jurisdiction it must surely be raining."

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.

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.

At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Madison changed the draft language from Congress's power to "make" war to "declare" war

The change was deliberate: "make" war seemed to leave the president unable to defend the country against sudden attack, while "declare" preserved that defensive authority. The distinction between starting a war and responding to one has been debated ever since.

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.

Germany's Constitutional Court can review laws without waiting for a specific case

The German court follows a model of "abstract judicial review"—meaning it can assess the constitutionality of legislation in the abstract, rather than only in concrete disputes. Its binding decisions apply to all German courts.

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.

The Stamp Act of 1765 was a key stepping stone toward the American Revolution, igniting colonial resistance to British taxation.

The reaction to the first direct tax on colonists prompted the second-ever colonial congress and a broad boycott of British goods. It also gave birth to the Declaration of Rights and Grievances, the congress's document articulating the "no taxation without representation" stance. The act's passage was a major stepping stone to revolution.