Just before President John Adams left office in 1801, he appointed several judges to federal positions. These were called "midnight judges" because many were appointed on the final day of Adams’s term. One of these "midnight judges" was William Marbury, who had been named justice of the peace for Washington, DC.
Thomas Jefferson succeeded Adams and signed a bill repealing the "midnight judge" law. When Marbury was informed by the State Department that his commission had vanished, he sued new Secretary of State James Madison. Marbury took his case directly to the Supreme Court in accordance with the Judiciary Act of 1789. After two years of legal wrangling, the Supreme Court rendered a monumental decision.
Nullifying Federal Law
The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Marshall, one of Adams’s "midnight judges" and a Federalist who supported a strong federal government. Marshall ruled that Marbury was entitled to his commission, but he had no right to bring the case before the Supreme Court because the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional and therefore void. This was the first time the Court declared that a law passed by Congress and signed by the president was illegal.
Declaring that "A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void," Marshall argued that the Judiciary Act had given the Supreme Court original jurisdiction, which was erroneous because it should be the federal court of last resort. Thus Marbury should have initiated his case in a lower court before going directly to the Supreme Court. Although this meant that Marbury lost his case, the decision gave the Federalists a monumental victory.
"Judicial Review"
Marbury v. Madison introduced the concept of "judicial review," or the power of the Supreme Court to decide if acts of Congress (legislative) or the president (executive) are unconstitutional. This power was not granted to the Court in the Constitution, but Marshall argued that it needed to be added so the judiciary could become an equal branch of government with the legislative and executive.
Based on this precedent, the Supreme Court has routinely invalidated state and federal laws that it deems unconstitutional. However, many have argued that this upsets the constitutional intent by the founders because the Court was formed to merely interpret laws, not to overturn them. Overturning a law indirectly makes new law, but only Congress had been empowered to legislate.
President Jefferson denounced Marbury v. Madison as a violation of the founders’ intent when they wrote the Constitution. He believed that federal judges should be technical specialists, not policy makers, considering they are unelected officials serving for life. However, Jefferson did not have enough supporters in Congress to initiate a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision.
Alexander Hamilton’s Influence
Chief Justice Marshall was a disciple of Alexander Hamilton, one of America’s key founders who supported stronger national government and weaker state power. In Federalist No. 78, Hamilton wrote: "A constitution is in fact, and must be, regarded as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them (the courts) to ascertain its meaning as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body."
Hamilton believed that a benevolent judiciary should rise above the politics of government to oversee and rule on all activities below it. He argued that the judiciary "will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution," and that "the general liberty of the people can never be endangered" by federal judges. However, Hamilton failed to acknowledge the dangers of a judiciary that defies the will of the people or ceases to be benevolent.
Centralizing Power
In declaring that the Supreme Court was the final authority on law in the U.S., John Marshall set the precedent for a strong, centralized federal judiciary that weakened the rights of states and the people. "Judicial review" was a concept that was neither endorsed nor documented by the founders in the Constitution. This effectively gave unelected government officials the power to nullify laws passed by popularly elected representatives. This allows the Supreme Court to declare the will of the people null and void.
Today it is generally accepted that the Supreme Court has the right to not only invalidate federal and state laws, but to set public policy (i.e., Roe v. Wade) as well. However, the Court was originally intended to be merely an advisory body to Congress and the president. Marshall’s concept of judicial review upset the founders’ vision of balancing power between the federal branches of government and between the federal and state governments.
Sources
- Davis, Kenneth C.: Don’t Know Much About History (New York, NY: HarperCollins, Inc., 2003)
- DiLorenzo, Thomas J.: Hamilton’s Curse (New York, NY: Random House, Inc., 2008)
- Schweikart, Larry and Allen, Michael: A Patriot’s History of the United States (New York, NY: Penguin Group, 2004)
Walter Coffey - Walter Coffey is a freelance writer who resides in Houston, Texas. Walter has written several works of historical fiction and non-fiction, ...
Join the Conversation