Read the majority opinion that established judicial review

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

'What each of us must come to realize is that our intent always comes through.'

- First African American Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall (1908-1993)

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Virginia's Declaration of Rights was a main inspiration for Madison's Bill of Rights

James Madison drew on Virginia's Declaration of Rights, written in 1776. The document affirmed freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and jury trials, and placed limits on government power—core protections that later appeared in the Bill of Rights.

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.

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.

Federalist 10 argued that a large republic best protects liberty

In Federalist 10, James Madison argued that a broad federal government could better control factions than small states (like classical city-states in ancient Greece). This foundational text in American political thought reframed the Constitution as a solution to political division rather than a threat to self-government.

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.

James Madison's original draft of the First Amendment was far more expansive than what was ratified

Madison's first proposed language guaranteed the right "to speak, to write, or to publish" one's sentiments freely—broader and more explicit than the final text—and described the free press as "one of the great bulwarks of liberty."

Marshall served in the Continental army under Washington

Before his judicial career, Marshall served in a Virginia regiment during the American Revolution, rising to the rank of captain. He fought at Brandywine and Monmouth, endured the winter at Valley Forge, and developed a personal connection with Gen. George Washington.

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.

Federalist 51 argues that liberty could be protected within the national government

In Federalist 51, James Madison wrote that separating powers and pitting their ambitions against one another would restrain federal overreach from within, reducing reliance on state resistance as the sole check on national authority.