Marbury v Madison: Judicial Review
Marbury gave the Supreme Court final authority to interpret the Constitution. Every time a federal court strikes down a state law banning abortion (Roe v. Wade, later overturned by Dobbs), declares affirmative action unconstitutional (Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 2023), or blocks a president's executive order, it exercises the power Marshall claimed in 1803. Critics argue this makes the Court too powerful—nine unelected judges can override laws passed by elected representatives. Supporters say judicial review protects minority rights from majority tyranny. The Court did not strike down another federal law until Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), but since the New Deal, judicial review has become routine. Today, the Supreme Court reviews dozens of laws each term.
Marbury v Madison: Judicial Review
Marbury gave the Supreme Court final authority to interpret the Constitution. Every time a federal court strikes down a state law banning abortion (Roe v. Wade, later overturned by Dobbs), declares affirmative action unconstitutional (Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 2023), or blocks a president's executive order, it exercises the power Marshall claimed in 1803. Critics argue this makes the Court too powerful—nine unelected judges can override laws passed by elected representatives. Supporters say judicial review protects minority rights from majority tyranny. The Court did not strike down another federal law until Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), but since the New Deal, judicial review has become routine. Today, the Supreme Court reviews dozens of laws each term.
Marbury v Madison: Judicial Review
Marbury gave the Supreme Court final authority to interpret the Constitution. Every time a federal court strikes down a state law banning abortion (Roe v. Wade, later overturned by Dobbs), declares affirmative action unconstitutional (Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 2023), or blocks a president's executive order, it exercises the power Marshall claimed in 1803. Critics argue this makes the Court too powerful—nine unelected judges can override laws passed by elected representatives. Supporters say judicial review protects minority rights from majority tyranny. The Court did not strike down another federal law until Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), but since the New Deal, judicial review has become routine. Today, the Supreme Court reviews dozens of laws each term.