Marshall used deft political maneuvering to increase the court's power in Marbury v. Madison

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

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

John Marshall invested in western land speculation

Like many Virginia elites of his era, Marshall invested in large tracts of western land, including holdings in Kentucky and the Ohio valley. His financial interests mirrored the broader post-Revolutionary pattern of land speculation among political leaders.

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 maintained a lifelong connection to George Washington

Marshall served under Washington in the Continental army, later delivered a memorial address following his death, and chaired the funeral arrangements. He also authored a five-volume, 3,200-page biography, "The Life of George Washington."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

'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)

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.

Hear about James Madison's presidency with The Washington Post's 'Presidential' podcast

As president, Madison governed during periods of constitutional uncertainty, foreign policy crises, and the War of 1812, making him the first American president to serve during a declared war. This podcast analyzes how his constitutional ideas translated into effective presidential leadership.

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.

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.

Madison urged Jefferson to accept the Louisiana Purchase despite constitutional concerns

As secretary of state, James Madison helped negotiate the 1803 Louisiana Purchase and persuaded Thomas Jefferson to proceed, arguing that the strategic and economic stakes outweighed the unresolved constitutional questions.

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 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.

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.

Madison and Jefferson forged a political alliance that shaped the early US republic

Beginning in the 1780s, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson collaborated closely to oppose centralized power, to found the Democratic-Republican Party, and to guide the nation's early debates on constitutional and foreign policy.

Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1937 court-packing plan sought to expand the Supreme Court—and failed

Frustrated by Supreme Court rulings against the New Deal, Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed expanding the court in 1937. The failed plan triggered fierce backlash and is regarded as the last serious presidential attempt to alter the court's size for ideological ends.

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.

Foreign policy and war defined Madison's presidency

During James Madison's presidency, disputes with Britain and France over trade, maritime rights, and impressment dominated foreign policy, culminating in the War of 1812 and shaping how the United States engaged with major European powers.

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.

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.

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.