Marbury v. Madison: The Case That Shaped American Democracy

Few factors separate the United States from other democracies worldwide. Yet, the nation is frequently described as the global leader—not only in economic power but also in democratic governance. Why is this? With 96 democracies globally, why does the U.S. consistently rise to the top?

The answer lies in one of the most influential court cases in global history: Marbury v. Madison. This landmark case established the principle of judicial review, giving the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution. In doing so, it laid the foundation for the checks and balances that make the U.S. government a model for the world.

The case originated in 1803, during the transition of power from President John Adams to Thomas Jefferson. In the final hours of his presidency, Adams appointed several judges under the Judiciary Act of 1801 to maintain Federalist influence. These “midnight judges” included William Marbury, appointed as a justice of the peace for the District of Columbia. Jefferson’s Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to accept Marbury’s appointment, as it had come so late. Marbury filed a lawsuit asking the Supreme Court to require Madison to deliver the document.

This seemingly simple legal dispute raised profound constitutional questions: Did Marbury have a right to the appointment? Could the Supreme Court force Madison to comply? More importantly, did the Court have the authority to hear the case at all? Chief Justice John Marshall’s decision would answer these questions, reshaping the American government forever.

Chief Justice Marshall ruled that while Marbury had a right to his appointment, the section of the Judiciary Act granting the Supreme Court the power to issue such orders was unconstitutional. Marshall declared that it was the Court’s role to interpret the Constitution and determine the validity of laws passed by Congress.

This decision was monumental, establishing the judiciary as an equal branch of government alongside the executive and legislative branches. Before Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court's power was largely undefined. By asserting the authority to invalidate unconstitutional laws, the Court became a protector of the Constitution and a key player in the system of checks and balances. Without this case, the judiciary might not have played such a crucial role in shaping the nation’s laws and protecting individual rights.

The principle of judicial review established by Marbury v. Madison continues to influence American democracy. It allows the Supreme Court to strike down laws and executive actions that violate the Constitution, ensuring no branch of government becomes too powerful. Judicial review operates in two primary ways: as a check on legislative power and as a safeguard for individual liberties.

The Court reviews laws passed by Congress or state legislatures to ensure they align with constitutional principles. In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), for instance, the Court ruled that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, overturning decades of discriminatory laws.

Judicial review also protects individual rights by invalidating government actions that infringe on freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Cases like Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which affirmed the right to marry for same-sex couples, illustrate the Court’s role in expanding rights and liberties.

While Chief Justice John Marshall laid the groundwork for judicial review, other justices have further defined its application. One of the most influential since Marshall was Justice Antonin Scalia. Known for his commitment to “originalism,” Scalia believed the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original meaning at the time it was written.

Scalia’s approach often shaped the Court’s decisions, even in controversial cases. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), Scalia authored the majority opinion affirming an individual’s right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. His reasoning was rooted in historical context, reflecting his belief that the Constitution’s words should guide judicial interpretation.

Originalism is considered by some as the only proper way to interpret the Constitution because it prevents judges from injecting personal beliefs or modern opinions into the law. Interpreting the Constitution based on personal ideas or changing societal values could lead to unpredictable and inconsistent rulings, undermining the rule of law and the democratic process by allowing unelected judges to create new standards based on their own ideology, rather than applying established ones.

Furthermore, originalism promotes a government of laws, not of men. It ensures all branches of government remain within their proper limits and respect the separation of powers. By interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning, significant changes to its meaning come from a democratic process—through amendments—rather than judicial decisions. This approach maintains the Constitution's integrity and reinforces it as a living document that can be changed by the people, but only through proper means.

While Scalia’s views were sometimes polarizing, his influence on constitutional law cannot be overstated. He advanced the idea that judicial review should be grounded in the Constitution's text and history, ensuring the Court remains faithful to its foundational purpose.

Without judicial review, the United States could not maintain its status as a democratic leader. It ensures laws are not only created by elected representatives but also checked against the enduring principles of the Constitution. This system of accountability sets the U.S. apart from other democracies and solidifies its position as a global example of democratic governance.

The legacy of Marbury v. Madison is evident in today’s Supreme Court. A recent example is Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), which overturned Roe v. Wade. The Court revisited the issue of abortion rights, concluding that the Constitution does not explicitly guarantee the right to abortion, leaving the matter to individual states.

The debate over Roe v. Wade is deeply tied to originalism, highlighting how different interpretations of the Constitution can lead to vastly different conclusions. Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide, relied on the idea that the Constitution implicitly protects a woman's right to privacy, which extends to her decision to have an abortion. Critics, particularly originalists, argue the Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to abortion and that such decisions should be left to the states or the democratic process.

Supporters of Roe v. Wade argue personal liberty and privacy are fundamental rights protected by the Constitution. They believe forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term infringes on her bodily autonomy and personal freedom. This view often aligns with a more flexible interpretation of the Constitution, one that adapts to modern values and societal changes. Supporters of abortion rights see the decision as part of a broader commitment to civil liberties, similar to rights for same-sex marriage and other personal freedoms.

Opponents of Roe v. Wade, many of whom are originalists, argue the decision was an overreach by the Supreme Court, lacking a clear basis in the Constitution's text. Oftentimes, they believe abortion involves another potential victim—the unborn child. This view emphasizes the government’s duty to protect life, shifting the moral and legal debate, making abortion distinct from other civil liberties issues like gay rights, where there is no direct harm to another party.

The presence of a potential victim in the abortion debate adds complexity that sets it apart from other civil liberties discussions. Those who see the fetus as a victim argue the government’s role is to protect all human life: born or unborn. This perspective often appeals to the principle that laws should protect the vulnerable, making the abortion debate uniquely controversial and morally charged. Both sides present strong arguments—one focusing on personal autonomy and the other on protecting potential life—making common ground difficult to navigate and find.

Regardless of one’s perspective, cases like Dobbs underscore the continued relevance of Marbury v. Madison. The Supreme Court’s power to interpret the Constitution remains a defining feature of American democracy, shaping the nation’s laws and principles in ways that influence not only the U.S. but also the world.

By establishing judicial review, this case empowered the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution and protect individual rights. Its impact is evident in landmark decisions, the legacy of influential justices like Scalia, and modern cases that continue to define the nation’s legal landscape.

In a world with 96 democracies, the U.S. stands apart because of its commitment to constitutional governance and the rule of law. The principles established by Marbury v. Madison highlight the enduring power of democracy and the critical role of an independent judiciary. Without it, the United States would not be the leader it is today.