On February 24, 2025, the United States will commemorate the 222nd anniversary of the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in Marbury v. Madison, the landmark 1803 case that established the principle of judicial review.
This foundational decision affirmed the judiciary’s power to declare laws unconstitutional and cemented the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.
However, as the nation reflects on this historic milestone, the principle of judicial review is facing unprecedented challenges by former President Donald Trump and his legal team.
The White House has criticized federal judges for blocking President Donald Trump’s executive actions, accusing them of judicial activism as courts issued a cascade of rulings blocking various illegal orders, such as efforts by the Department of Government Efficiency to access sensitive government data systems, attempts to unilaterally freeze billions of dollars in federal funding, and moves to defund transgender healthcare.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed that liberal judges are abusing their power to halt Trump’s efforts to reshape the federal government, including policies on birthright citizenship and federal worker buyouts.
High-profile figures like billionaire South African immigrant Elon Musk and Vice President J.D. Vance have also questioned the court’s authority, calling judges corrupt and accusing them of overstepping their bounds.
Despite his allies’ criticism, Trump stated he would follow the law, though he called the court’s actions “egregious” and claimed they allow opponents to “cover their tracks.”
Legal experts, including retired Judge Tim Kaltenbach and attorney Mark Bryant, defended the judiciary’s role, emphasizing that judicial review is a cornerstone of the U.S. Constitution’s checks and balances. They explained that the courts have historically reviewed and limited executive and legislative actions to ensure compliance with the law.
Bryant highlighted that judicial intervention is not unprecedented, citing examples like courts blocking President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan.
Both experts expressed concern over political figures undermining the judiciary’s authority, stressing the importance of maintaining the constitutional system to prevent authoritarianism.
They urged the public to understand and uphold the principles of checks and balances, which have safeguarded American democracy for nearly 250 years. Kaltenbach expressed confidence in the judiciary’s ability to continue upholding the rule of law, as it has since the nation’s founding.
The case arose from a political clash between outgoing President John Adams and his successor, Thomas Jefferson. In the waning days of his presidency, Adams appointed 16 new circuit judges and 42 justices of the peace under the Judiciary Act of 1801, a move seen as an attempt to entrench Federalist influence in the judiciary.
William Marbury, one of the appointees, was named a Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia, but his commission was not delivered before Jefferson took office.
When James Madison, Jefferson’s Secretary of State, refused to deliver the commission, Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to compel him to act.
Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for the unanimous Supreme Court, ruled that Madison’s refusal to deliver the commission was illegal.
However, the court declined to issue a writ of mandamus—a court order compelling Madison to act—because the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that authorized Marbury to bring his claim directly to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional.
Marshall argued that Congress could not expand the court’s original jurisdiction beyond what was explicitly outlined in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.
In striking down part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, Marshall established the principle of judicial review, asserting that it is “emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This decision affirmed the judiciary’s role as a coequal branch of government, capable of checking the legislative and executive branches when their actions conflict with the Constitution.
The legacy of Marbury v. Madison continues to shape American governance, but it faces modern challenges. Lawyers representing former President Donald Trump have repeatedly disputed the concept of judicial review, particularly in defense of his administration’s actions. During his presidency, Trump issued dozens of executive orders that were ruled unconstitutional, illegally fired thousands of federal employees, and attempted to dismantle entire government agencies established under the authority of Congress—all without legislative approval. These actions tested the limits of executive power and raised concerns about the erosion of checks and balances.
For example, Trump’s lawyers argued that his executive order freezing foreign assistance funding was not subject to judicial review, directly contradicting the precedent set by Marbury v. Madison. Similarly, his attempts to undermine agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Education sparked legal battles over the separation of powers.
Legal scholars warn that these challenges threaten the very foundation of American constitutional law. “The principle of judicial review is not just a legal doctrine; it’s a safeguard of democracy,” said Professor Laura Bennett, a constitutional law expert at Harvard University. “When the executive branch seeks to bypass judicial oversight, it undermines the rule of law and the balance of power that the framers of the Constitution intended.”
As the nation marks the 222nd anniversary of Marbury v. Madison, the case’s principles remain as vital as ever. In an era of heightened political polarization and debates over the scope of executive power, the decision serves as a reminder of the importance of an independent judiciary and the enduring strength of the Constitution.
The anniversary also underscores the ongoing relevance of judicial review in safeguarding democracy. As Chief Justice Marshall wrote in 1803, the Constitution is “a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means.” Today, that principle continues to guide the nation, ensuring that the rule of law prevails in the face of evolving challenges.
Marbury v. Madison stands as a testament to the foresight of the nation’s founders and the resilience of the American constitutional system. Two hundred and twenty-two years later, its legacy endures, reminding us that the Constitution remains the ultimate safeguard of liberty and justice for all—even as it faces new threats in the modern era.
Discover more from NJTODAY.NET
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.