Search results
Dec 2, 2009 · Marbury v. Madison (1803) was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that established for the first time that federal courts had the power to overturn an act of Congress on the ground that it...
- 3 min
The Marbury v. Madison decision resulted in the establishment of the concept of judicial review. Marshall's famous line from Marbury v. Madison on American federal courts' power to interpret the law, now inscribed on the wall of the U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C.
- 1010 Wayne Avenue Suite 860, Silver Spring, 20910, Maryland
- (301) 589-1130
Sep 11, 2024 · Marbury v. Madison, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court first declared an act of Congress unconstitutional and thus established the doctrine of judicial review. The court’s opinion, written by Chief Justice John Marshall, is considered one of the foundations of U.S. constitutional law.
In one of the most important legal cases in U.S. history, the Supreme Court for the first time declared that an act of Congress was unconstitutional, or against the country’s set of rules, and thereby established the idea of judicial review.
Judicial review is one of the distinctive features of United States constitutional law. However, the Constitution does not expressly grant the federal courts the power to declare government actions unconstitutional. Instead, the Supreme Court established the doctrine in the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison. 1.
The Marbury v. Madison case emerged in the wake of the U.S. presidential election of 1800, in which the incumbent, John Adams of the Federalist Party, lost his bid for reelection. Thomas Jefferson, of the opposing Democratic-Republican Party, won the election.
People also ask
How did Marbury v Madison affect judicial review?
What is Marbury v Madison & Dred Scott?
Why is Marbury v Madison important?
Why did the Supreme Court deny Marbury v Madison?
This essay, one of several urging New York to reject the proposed Constitution of the United States, was written by an anonymous author adopting the pseudonym “Brutus.” It argues that the power of judicial review would make the judiciary too strong.
