Judicial Review of Marbury v. Madison

In 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, “The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). That is, the Supreme Court is the final word in any disputes arising under the Constitution. That includes legislation passed by Congress. It is up to the courts to interpret and apply the contents of the Constitution and then determine whether or not the underlying issue conforms (or not) to the intention of the Constitution. It defined the rule of law by which even the President must abide.

The Marbury case stems from an appointment made by President Adams just before he left office. President Jefferson, the successor president, refused to acknowledge the appointment of William Marbury as a district judge. Marbury sued then-Secretary of State, James Madison for failure to deliver said writ. Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion did not rule directly on the case which should have been in favor of Marbury and against Madison, meaning that President Jefferson would have been ordered to deliver the appointment. If President Jefferson had chosen to ignore such an order, the powers of the Supreme Court would have been diminished and the three-tiered system of checks and balances between the branches of government would disappear. Instead, Chief Justice Marshall ruled on the constitutionality of the Judicial Act of 1809 upon which Marbury based his lawsuit. The act was ruled unconstitutional and judicial review was born. Based on the court’s opinion, Marbury never took office.

Without judicial review, the Constitution, in essence, would be worthless. Judicial review is an essential part of the checks and balances for the three branches of the government. It is probably the most important form of check and balance over the executive and legislative branches of the government. As was almost the case in Marbury, where President Adams appointed judges in the last hours of his presidency, legislative bodies could pass laws based on nothing more than a whim if there were no process with which to hold those laws accountable.

Judicial review becomes even more important as laws become more convoluted and overly burdensome with legalese. Also, it seems that there is always a case brought that purposefully attempts to circumvent the Constitution and the rights contained therein. There must be a point where the perception of something being unconstitutional can be affirmed or denied and the Supreme Court is that point.

Judicial review may be better explained by way of example. For instance, in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), the court decided the constitutionality of flag burning relative to the First Amendment freedom of speech right. The court considered flag burning a symbolic speech and therefore struck down enforcement of the Texas statute outlawing flag burning. In Miranda v. Arizona, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966), the Supreme Court reviewed the underlying case in terms of whether or not it violated the 5th Amendment. The court held in Miranda (and the other three similar cases decided with it) that any person accused of a crime must be advised of the repercussions and right to an attorney before questioning by the authorities. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) reviewed and confirmed a right not explicitly outlined in the Constitution – the right to privacy. Nevertheless, after judicial review, the court opined that law regarding abortion was an invasion of a woman’s right to privacy.

Judicial review is integral to a judicial system of fairness and equity. It would be hard to imagine if this process was not in place. It may just be what keeps the United States from being at the mercy of the deepest pockets (ones that can most afford to bring cases and/or sponsor legislative action). The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the supreme court determines the constitutionality of a law or statute…state or federal.

Works Cited

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)

Miranda v. Arizona, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966)

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)