Supreme Court Exam 2 Study Guide |
Judicial Review, Marbury v. Madison &
Key Cases Verified Questions Provided
with A+ Graded Rationales Latest
Updated 2026
judicial review
-the "authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which...conflicts with the
constitution
-has given court the responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a
living constitution whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new
situations
actions leading up to Marbury v. Madison
-February 1801: congress passes midnight judges act and John Marshall takes oath as chief
justice but continues to serve as Adams secretary of state
-March 2, 1801: Adams names Marbury and other justices of the peace
-march 3, 1801: senate confirms, Adams signs, and Marshall fails to deliver some of the
commissions
-march 4, 1801: Marshall, as chief justice, swears in Thomas Jefferson
-Jefferson tells his Secretary of State Madison not to deliver some of the commissions
Marbury v. Madison
-Marbury files an original action in the Supreme Court asking the Court to issue a writ of
mandamus forcing Secretary of State James Madison to deliver his commission.
-Marshall considers 4 legal issues:
(1) Does Marbury have a right to the commission?
YES
(2) If Marbury has a right, does the law give him a remedy?
YES
(3) May the judiciary issue a writ of mandamus to force the President to enforce the law?
YES
,(4) May the Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus (a/k/a does the Supreme Court have
original jurisdiction over this dispute)?
NO
Why the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction in Marbury v. Madison
-US Constitution, Article III, Section 2: “the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all
cases affecting ambassadors . . . and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases,
the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.”
-Judiciary Act of 1789: gave the Supreme
Court original jurisdiction to “issue
writs of mandamus”
legacy of Marbury v. Madison
“It is emphatically the
province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
what two cases established judicial review?
-Marbury V. Madison (1803): Supreme Court has the power to strike down federal laws that
conflict with U.S. Constitution.
-McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): Supreme Court has the power to invalidate state tax on
federal government. "We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding . . .
intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of
human affairs.“
-After Marbury, Court did not strike down a federal law as unconstitutional until Dred Scott v.
Sandford
(1857)
-also federalist No. 78
Article 3
-the foundations of judicial review
-section 1: "The judicial Power of the United
States, shall be vested in one supreme Court,
and in such inferior Courts as the Congress
may from time to time ordain and establish."
, -section 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this
Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under
their Authority . . ."
Virgina's Ratifying Convention
-In arguing in favor of ratification, John Marshall assured hesitant Virginians that the judiciary
would
limit the legislature’s power:
-“To what quarter will you look for
protection from an infringement
on the Constitution, If you will
not give the power to the
Judiciary?
How can judicial review harm our constitutional system of government?
How can judicial review protect it? Which possibility do you think is more likely in our current
political climate?
-Judicial review can be seen as undemocratic if judges, who are not elected, overturn laws
passed by democratically elected representatives. Concentration of Power in the Judiciary: If
the courts become too powerful in striking down laws or executive actions, it can lead to an
imbalance of power among the branches of government. Judges may be influenced by their
own personal ideologies, leading to rulings that reflect political biases rather than neutral
legal principles. Judicial review can become harmful when judges engage in judicial activism,
where they interpret the Constitution based on personal preferences or contemporary
societal values, rather than the original intent of the framers or existing legal principles.
-Judicial review serves as a critical check on the powers of the legislative and executive
branches. By enforcing the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, judicial review helps
maintain consistency and stability in legal interpretation. Judicial review allows the
Constitution to be interpreted in light of evolving societal norms and challenges.
what legal proposition did Marbury v. Madison establish?
the authority of the federal courts to declare a law passed by congress unconstitutional and
therefore void
After Madison declined Marbury's request, Marbury asked the Supreme Court to issue a writ
of mandamus. If the Supreme Courted issued the writ, what would have happened?
Judicial Review, Marbury v. Madison &
Key Cases Verified Questions Provided
with A+ Graded Rationales Latest
Updated 2026
judicial review
-the "authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which...conflicts with the
constitution
-has given court the responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a
living constitution whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new
situations
actions leading up to Marbury v. Madison
-February 1801: congress passes midnight judges act and John Marshall takes oath as chief
justice but continues to serve as Adams secretary of state
-March 2, 1801: Adams names Marbury and other justices of the peace
-march 3, 1801: senate confirms, Adams signs, and Marshall fails to deliver some of the
commissions
-march 4, 1801: Marshall, as chief justice, swears in Thomas Jefferson
-Jefferson tells his Secretary of State Madison not to deliver some of the commissions
Marbury v. Madison
-Marbury files an original action in the Supreme Court asking the Court to issue a writ of
mandamus forcing Secretary of State James Madison to deliver his commission.
-Marshall considers 4 legal issues:
(1) Does Marbury have a right to the commission?
YES
(2) If Marbury has a right, does the law give him a remedy?
YES
(3) May the judiciary issue a writ of mandamus to force the President to enforce the law?
YES
,(4) May the Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus (a/k/a does the Supreme Court have
original jurisdiction over this dispute)?
NO
Why the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction in Marbury v. Madison
-US Constitution, Article III, Section 2: “the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all
cases affecting ambassadors . . . and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases,
the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.”
-Judiciary Act of 1789: gave the Supreme
Court original jurisdiction to “issue
writs of mandamus”
legacy of Marbury v. Madison
“It is emphatically the
province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
what two cases established judicial review?
-Marbury V. Madison (1803): Supreme Court has the power to strike down federal laws that
conflict with U.S. Constitution.
-McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): Supreme Court has the power to invalidate state tax on
federal government. "We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding . . .
intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of
human affairs.“
-After Marbury, Court did not strike down a federal law as unconstitutional until Dred Scott v.
Sandford
(1857)
-also federalist No. 78
Article 3
-the foundations of judicial review
-section 1: "The judicial Power of the United
States, shall be vested in one supreme Court,
and in such inferior Courts as the Congress
may from time to time ordain and establish."
, -section 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this
Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under
their Authority . . ."
Virgina's Ratifying Convention
-In arguing in favor of ratification, John Marshall assured hesitant Virginians that the judiciary
would
limit the legislature’s power:
-“To what quarter will you look for
protection from an infringement
on the Constitution, If you will
not give the power to the
Judiciary?
How can judicial review harm our constitutional system of government?
How can judicial review protect it? Which possibility do you think is more likely in our current
political climate?
-Judicial review can be seen as undemocratic if judges, who are not elected, overturn laws
passed by democratically elected representatives. Concentration of Power in the Judiciary: If
the courts become too powerful in striking down laws or executive actions, it can lead to an
imbalance of power among the branches of government. Judges may be influenced by their
own personal ideologies, leading to rulings that reflect political biases rather than neutral
legal principles. Judicial review can become harmful when judges engage in judicial activism,
where they interpret the Constitution based on personal preferences or contemporary
societal values, rather than the original intent of the framers or existing legal principles.
-Judicial review serves as a critical check on the powers of the legislative and executive
branches. By enforcing the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, judicial review helps
maintain consistency and stability in legal interpretation. Judicial review allows the
Constitution to be interpreted in light of evolving societal norms and challenges.
what legal proposition did Marbury v. Madison establish?
the authority of the federal courts to declare a law passed by congress unconstitutional and
therefore void
After Madison declined Marbury's request, Marbury asked the Supreme Court to issue a writ
of mandamus. If the Supreme Courted issued the writ, what would have happened?
