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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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.

Critics argued Hamilton prioritized central power over popular sovereignty

This podcast examines Hamilton's belief in expansive federal power and why he was repeatedly labeled a monarchist—tracing how his calls for a strong executive, his life-tenure proposals at the Constitutional Convention, and his admiration for British stability fueled accusations that he favored centralized power over republican rule.

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."

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.

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 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.

1440 traces how the presidency transformed from the limited office envisioned by the Founders into today's powerful institution.

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.

The rivalry between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson centered on federalism—the question of how much power the federal government should hold relative to the states.

Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson clashed over how power should be divided in the new republic—Hamilton favoring a strong national government with broad implied powers, and Jefferson warning that such authority would erode state power and threaten republican liberty.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Explore the specific authorities granted to Congress: the 'enumerated powers'

The Constitution grants Congress a list of powers—including taxing, regulating interstate commerce, and declaring war—while powers not explicitly listed are reserved to the states or the people, defining the federal government's scope of 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.

Alexander Hamilton played a significant role in creating the American system of government

From 1787 to 1788, Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay anonymously published a collection of essays known as the Federalist Papers to promote the new Constitution. Of the 85 essays that proved pivotal to the eventual ratification of the document, Hamilton wrote 51.

Explore the history and origins of the power of the pardon

The concept of clemency dates back to at least ancient Greece and was later embraced by English monarchs. During the Constitutional Convention, the founders debated whether presidents should have such power—ultimately adopting Alexander Hamilton's expansive view that presidential pardons serve as a check on the justice system.

The Civil War permanently strengthened federal power

The Civil War expanded federal power through emancipation, national military mobilization, and postwar civil rights laws, permanently strengthening the national government and shifting the balance of authority away from the states.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Read the Federalist Papers—the essays that defended the proposed Constitution

Written between 1787 and 1788, the Federalist Papers—85 essays by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay—defended the Constitution and articulated the logic of federalism. They remain a key guide to the original interpretation of the Constitution.

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.

Hear a narrative account of Justice John Marshall's 'simple' upbringing and his major impact on the American republic.

Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist 69 that the president's military authority was far more limited than a king's

Hamilton wrote that the president's commander-in-chief role amounted to little more than the authority to command the military, while the powers to declare war, raise armies, and regulate fleets belonged to the legislature. He contrasted this with the British king to argue that the executive posed no threat of tyranny.

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.

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.

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.

Congress has handled past crises through emergency lawmaking and institutional expansion

In a 2020 podcast from the National Constitution Center, historians and political scientists examine how Congress navigated past national crises—particularly the Civil War—and what those moments reveal about governing today.

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 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.

Hear how the 2 religious clauses in the First Amendment have been tested and evolved over time

This podcast examines the evolution of the free exercise and establishment clauses, tracing their development from federal restrictions to state and local laws. Discover the believers who challenged the limits of religious freedom throughout American history.

Hamilton proposed one of the strongest visions of national government

At the Constitutional Convention, Alexander Hamilton advanced a plan modeled partly on Britain's system, calling for a powerful national executive and for senators to serve for life (with good behavior)—proposals that failed to gain widespread support.

The necessary and proper clause of the Constitution allows Congress flexibility in governing

The Constitution authorizes Congress to pass laws needed to carry out its enumerated powers, which, over time, have become one of the Constitution's most powerful sources of federal 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.