5.2 Judicial Review, Marbury v. Madison, and Supreme Court Operation

Judicial Review, Marbury v. Madison, and Supreme Court Operation

While the text of Article III outlines the jurisdiction and structure of the federal courts, it never explicitly uses the phrase "judicial review." The emergence of the Supreme Court as the supreme constitutional arbiter of the nation was the product of foundational political theory, early institutional clashes, and the jurisprudential brilliance of Chief Justice John Marshall.

---

1. The Nature and Scope of Judicial Review

Judicial review is the constitutional authority of the judicial branch to examine the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative arms of government—both federal and state—and to invalidate and declare void any statute, official action, or administrative rule that contradicts the Constitution.

                  [ THE CONSTITUTION ]
                   (Supreme Law of the Land)
                              ^
                              |
            [ Power of Judicial Review ]
          (Federal Courts evaluate conformity)
                              |
        +---------------------+---------------------+
        |                     |                     |
   [ Federal Laws ]     [ Executive Acts ]     [ State Laws ]
   (Acts of Congress)   (Executive Orders)   (State Constitutions
                                              & State Statutes)

Judicial review operates across three distinct governmental dimensions:

1. Congressional Legislation: The power to strike down federal statutes enacted by Congress that exceed constitutional powers or violate fundamental liberties (e.g., striking down parts of the federal campaign finance statute in Citizens United v. FEC, 2010).
2. Executive Actions: The power to invalidate executive orders, administrative agency rules, or actions taken by the President and bureaucratic officials that exceed statutory authorization or Article II powers (e.g., striking down President Truman's seizure of the nation's steel mills in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 1952).
3. State Laws and Court Rulings: Under the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2), the Supreme Court possesses the authority to review and strike down state constitutional provisions, state statutes, and state court rulings that conflict with federal law or the U.S. Constitution (established early in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1816, and Cohens v. Virginia, 1821).

---

2. Alexander Hamilton and Federalist No. 78

During the ratification debates of 1787–1788, Anti-Federalist essayists writing under pseudonyms like "Brutus" (likely New York judge Robert Yates) warned that the proposed federal judiciary would become an uncontrollable, aristocratic oligarchy. Brutus argued that judges with lifetime tenure and the power to interpret the Constitution according to its "spirit" would gradually extinguish state sovereignty and elevate judicial will above the elected legislature.

In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton mounted a comprehensive philosophical defense of the proposed judiciary, establishing several core arguments that anticipated modern constitutional law:

The "Least Dangerous Branch"

Hamilton famously reassured skeptics that the judiciary would always be the least dangerous branch of government because it possessed neither coercive power nor fiscal authority:

"The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; it may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."

Life Tenure as an Essential Bulwark

Hamilton argued that permanent judicial tenure during good behavior was indispensable. Without lifetime tenure, judges would be vulnerable to political pressure from the legislative and executive branches, or to the passionate, transient whims of popular majorities. Independence is essential to protect minority rights against majoritarian tyranny.

The Inherent Logic of Constitutional Supremacy

Hamilton explicitly articulated the rationale for judicial review years before Marbury v. Madison:

• The Constitution is the fundamental, supreme law created directly by the people.
• Any legislative act contrary to the Constitution is fundamentally void because a delegated agent (Congress) cannot possess greater authority than the master (the people acting through the Constitution).
• The courts were designed to serve as an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, keeping the latter strictly within the limits assigned to their authority.

---

3. The Landmark Precedent: Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Although Hamilton articulated the theoretical justification for judicial review, the doctrine was officially incorporated into American constitutional jurisprudence by Chief Justice John Marshall in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison (1803).

[ Election of 1800: Adams (Federalist) Defeated by Jefferson (Dem-Rep) ]
                                    |
[ Judiciary Act of 1801: Adams Appoints "Midnight Judges" ]
                                    |
[ Marbury's Commission Signed & Sealed, but Undelivered at Midnight ]
                                    |
[ Jefferson Orders Madison to Withhold Commission ]
                                    |
[ Marbury Petitions Supreme Court for Writ of Mandamus under Sec. 13 ]
                                    |
[ Chief Justice Marshall's Ruling: Marbury Deserves Commission, ]
[ BUT Sec. 13 Unconstitutionally Expanded Court's Original Jurisdiction ]
                                    |
[ RESULT: Sec. 13 Voided; Supreme Court Establishes Judicial Review ]

The Historical and Political Crisis

The election of 1800 marked the first peaceful transfer of political power between rival political parties in American history. Defeated Federalist President John Adams and the outgoing Federalist Congress sought to entrench their party's influence within the third branch. In the final weeks of Adams's term, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801 and the District of Columbia Organic Act, creating dozens of new federal judgeships and justice-of-the-peace positions. Adams stayed up late signing judicial commissions—earning these appointees the moniker "Midnight Judges."

John Marshall, who was then serving as Adams's Secretary of State (and had just been confirmed as Chief Justice), affixed the Great Seal of the United States to the commissions but failed to deliver several before midnight on March 3, 1801. When Democratic-Republican President Thomas Jefferson took office the next day, he discovered the undelivered commissions and ordered his new Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver them. One of the thwarted appointees was William Marbury, a wealthy Maryland Federalist named Justice of the Peace for the District of Columbia.

Marbury invoked Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, filing a lawsuit directly in the Supreme Court requesting a writ of mandamus—a legal order commanding a government official (Madison) to perform an official, non-discretionary ministerial duty (deliver the commission).

Chief Justice Marshall's Dilemma and Masterstroke

John Marshall faced an acute institutional crisis:

• If the Court issued the writ of mandamus ordering Madison to deliver the commission, the Jefferson administration would simply ignore the order, exposing the Supreme Court's total enforcement impotence.
• If the Court backed down and declined to order delivery, it would appear to surrender meekly to presidential intimidation, subordinating the judiciary to the executive branch.

Marshall resolved this dilemma with exceptional constitutional ingenuity, framing the decision around three sequential questions:

1. Did Marbury have a legal right to the commission?
   • Yes. The appointment was legally complete and irrevocable once the President had signed it and the Secretary of State had affixed the Great Seal. Withholding the document was a violation of a vested legal right.
2. Did the laws of the United States afford Marbury a legal remedy?
   • Yes. The United States is "a government of laws, and not of men." When a specific legal right is violated, the law must provide a remedy, and a writ of mandamus against an executive official is an appropriate legal instrument.
3. Could the Supreme Court issue the writ of mandamus under its original jurisdiction?
   • No. This was the crux of the decision.

The Constitutional Conflict and Holding

Marbury filed his petition directly with the Supreme Court because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized the Supreme Court to "issue writs of mandamus... to any persons holding office, under the authority of the United States" under its original jurisdiction.

However, Marshall looked directly at Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which explicitly enumerates the exclusive categories of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction: cases involving ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, and those in which a state is a party. Article III states that in all other cases, the Court possesses appellate jurisdiction.

Marshall reasoned:

• The Constitution is the supreme, fundamental law of the land, establishing fixed institutional boundaries.
• An act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void. Congress cannot pass an ordinary statute (like Section 13) that expands the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction beyond the constitutional text.
• When an act of Congress conflicts with the Constitution, the courts are bound to enforce the Constitution and disregard the statute.

Marshall penned the defining principle of American judicial supremacy:

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each."

By sacrificing Marbury's minor magistracy and declaring an act of Congress unconstitutional for the first time, Marshall avoided a confrontation with Jefferson while permanently elevating the Supreme Court to an equal, authoritative status as the final arbiter of constitutional meaning.

---

4. How the Supreme Court Operates: From Certiorari to Merits

The modern Supreme Court is an intensely selective institution. Out of approximately 7,000 to 8,000 petitions filed each term, the Court grants plenary review and issues signed, formal opinions in only 70 to 80 cases—an acceptance rate of approximately 1%.

Docket Selection: Writs of Certiorari and the Rule of Four

Almost all cases reach the Supreme Court through a petition for a writ of certiorari (an order directing the lower court to certify and transmit its records to the Supreme Court for review). Litigants who cannot afford the standard filing fees and printed legal briefs can file in forma pauperis petitions (e.g., Clarence Earl Gideon's handwritten petition in Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963).

To manage thousands of petitions, the Court employs two procedures:

• The Cert Pool: Most justices pool their law clerks to divide the petitions, draft evaluative memos, and make recommendations on which cases merit review.
• The Rule of Four: An informal, longstanding procedural rule governing docket selection. A petition for a writ of certiorari is granted if at least four of the nine justices agree that the legal question warrants the Court's attention. This counter-majoritarian rule prevents a five-justice majority from suppressing contentious legal questions.

Criteria for Granting Certiorari

Under Supreme Court Rule 10, review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. The Court prioritizes:

• Circuit Splits: When two or more federal circuit courts of appeals have reached contradictory conclusions on the same federal statutory or constitutional question;
• State Supreme Court Conflicts: When state courts of last resort have split on a federal question, or ruled in conflict with a federal circuit court;
• National Importance: Issues of sweeping constitutional or statutory significance requiring uniform nationwide resolution (e.g., presidential election challenges, presidential immunity, landmark civil rights disputes);
• Lower Court Departure: When a lower court has departed from established Supreme Court precedent.

The Solicitor General: "The Tenth Justice"

The Solicitor General of the United States is the third-ranking official in the Department of Justice, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Known colloquially as "the tenth justice," the Solicitor General:

• Represents the United States government in all litigation before the Supreme Court;
• Decides which cases the federal government will appeal after losing in lower courts;
• Files amicus curiae briefs at the Court's invitation or on behalf of the administration.

The Supreme Court grants certiorari to petitions filed or supported by the Solicitor General at an exceptionally high rate (often exceeding 50%), reflecting profound institutional trust in the Solicitor General's screening of meritorious legal issues.

Amicus Curiae Briefs: Interest Group Linkage

Outside parties not directly named in a lawsuit can submit amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs with the Court's permission or consent of the parties. Filed extensively by interest groups (e.g., the ACLU, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Chamber of Commerce, NRA), state attorneys general, and legal scholars, these briefs provide specialized sociological data, economic analyses, and historical arguments. Amicus briefs represent one of the primary mechanisms through which interest groups influence judicial policy.

Oral Argument and the Secret Judicial Conference

• Oral Arguments: Conducted in public sessions from October through April. Each side is typically allocated strictly 30 minutes. Justices aggressively interject with questions, probing the limits of the attorneys' legal theories and testing the broader real-world implications of a potential ruling.
• The Judicial Conference: On Wednesday afternoons and Fridays, the nine justices assemble in a private conference room to debate the argued cases. The meeting is strictly confidential; no law clerks, secretaries, or recording devices are permitted. The Chief Justice presides, summarizing the case and stating their preliminary vote, followed by each associate justice in order of seniority down to the most junior justice.

---

5. Supreme Court Opinions and the Precedent System

Once a preliminary vote is taken, the process of drafting opinions begins. Written opinions articulate the legal rationale of the Court and define how the ruling must be applied by lower courts across the country.

Opinion Assignment and Categories

• Opinion Assignment: If the Chief Justice is in the majority, the Chief assigns the task of writing the majority opinion (either to themselves or to another justice in the majority). If the Chief Justice is in the minority (dissenting), the most senior associate justice in the majority makes the assignment. Writing assignments involve intense institutional strategy—assigning an opinion to an ideologically moderate justice is often done to preserve a fragile 5–4 coalition.

• Majority Opinion: The official judgment and legal reasoning of the Court, joined by at least five justices. It sets binding nationwide precedent (stare decisis) that all lower federal and state courts must follow.
• Concurring Opinion: Written by a justice who agrees with the ultimate outcome or disposition (e.g., affirming or reversing the lower court), but disagrees with the majority's constitutional rationale, or wishes to emphasize a distinct legal doctrine.
• Dissenting Opinion: Authored by a justice in the minority who objects to both the outcome and the reasoning of the majority. While dissents carry no binding precedential authority, they are vital institutional documents. As Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes noted, a dissent is "an appeal to the brooding spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future day." Landmark dissents often become future majorities (e.g., Justice John Marshall Harlan's solitary dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson insisting that "our Constitution is color-blind" became the foundation for Brown v. Board of Education).
• Plurality Opinion: Occurs when five justices agree on the outcome, but fewer than five agree on the legal rationale. The plurality opinion is the opinion joined by the largest number of justices within the majority coalition. Under the Marks rule, the holding of the Court in such cases is viewed as the position taken by the justices who concurred on the narrowest legal grounds.

Stare Decisis: The Power and Limits of Legal Precedent

The foundation of the Anglo-American common-law tradition is stare decisis (Latin for "to stand by things decided"). Under this doctrine, judges are obligated to respect and adhere to the principles established in prior judicial decisions when deciding new cases involving similar legal questions.

Stare decisis serves crucial institutional functions:

• It promotes stability, predictability, and consistency in the law;
• It restrains judicial subjectivity and ideological caprice;
• It reinforces the Court's perceived legitimacy as an impartial legal tribunal rather than a political institution.

However, stare decisis is not an inexorable command, particularly in constitutional adjudication where errors can only be corrected through judicial reconsideration or the cumbersome Article V amendment process. The Supreme Court has repeatedly overruled its own precedents when prior rulings have proven unworkable, when factual circumstances or societal consensus have radically evolved, or when the prior ruling was deemed egregiously unconstitutional (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education (1954) overruling Plessy v. Ferguson (1896); Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) overruling Betts v. Brady (1942); Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) overruling Roe v. Wade (1973)).