Marbury v. Madison was an 1803 United States Supreme Court decision that formally asserted and exercised judicial review—the authority of courts to invalidate laws that conflict with the Constitution. The case arose when President John Adams appointed 42 justices of the peace in the final weeks of his presidency. One of these appointees, William Marbury, was denied his commission by the incoming administration of President Thomas Jefferson. The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether Marbury was entitled to his commission.
Hours of research by our editors, distilled into minutes of clarity.
In the US, nine unelected justices can shape some of the most personal and political parts of our lives. But the Supreme Court wasn't always this powerful. When it was first written into the Constitution, it had no clear authority, no real role, and little public respect.
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.
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.
A court designed to be the least powerful branch became one of the most influential institutions in history. 1440 Explores host Sony Kassam dives inside the Supreme Court of the United States, with help from Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar, to uncover how it gained extraordinary authority, what really happens behind closed doors, and why its power has become one of the most fiercely contested questions in modern democracy.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Become informed on key topics that help you participate in the world around you