THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INDEPENDENT AND POWERFUL FEDERAL JUDICIARY| 359original jurisdiction The
authority of a court to handle a case
fi rst, as in the Supreme Court’s
authority to initially hear disputes
between two states. However,
original jurisdiction for the Supreme
Court is not exclusive; it may assign
such a case to a lower court.review. Given the silence of the Constitution, Marshall simply asserted that the
Supreme Court had the power to determine when a law was unconstitutional.
Although the idea was not original to Marshall (the framers debated the
issue and Hamilton endorsed it in some detail in Federalist 78), the Court had
never exercised its authority to rule on the constitutionality of a federal law. The
facts of the Marbury case involved a partisan dispute over last-minute appoint-
ments to a lower court by the outgoing Adams administration. The new Jeff er-
son administration did not honor those appointments and one of the people who
didn’t get his position, Mr. Marbury, brought the case to the Supreme Court. Mar-
shall said that Marbury was due his commission, but the Court did not have the
power to give him his job because the part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that gave it
that power was unconstitutional! The core issue was Section 13 of the act, which
gave the Court the power to issue orders (writs of mandamus) to anyone holding
federal offi ce. This section expanded the original jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court, and that was where Congress overstepped its bounds, according to Mar-
shall. The original jurisdiction of the Court is clearly specifi ed in the Constitu-
tion, so any attempt by Congress to change that jurisdiction through legislation
would be unconstitutional; the only way to change original jurisdiction would be
through a constitutional amendment.^4 Marshall writes, “It is emphatically the
province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.... If two
laws confl ict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So
if a law be in opposition to the Constitution... the courts must determine which
of these confl icting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial
duty.”^5
By asserting its power to review the constitutionality of laws passed by Con-
gress, the Court became an equal partner in the institutional balance of power.
Although more than 50 years would pass before the Court would use judicial
review again to strike down a law passed by Congress (in the unfortunate 1857
Dred Scott case concerning slavery that basically led to the Civil War), the rea-
soning behind Marbury has never been challenged by subsequent presidents or
Congresses.^6
Interpreting federal laws may seem a logical responsibility for the Supreme
Court, but what about state laws? Should the Supreme Court have fi nal say over
them as well? The Constitution does not answer this question. However, the
supremacy clause requires that the Constitution and national laws take prece-
dence over state constitutions and state laws when they confl ict. And the
Judiciary Act of 1789 made it clear that the Supreme Court would rule
on these matters.
It didn’t take long for the Court to assert its power in this
area. In 1796 the Court heard a case concerning a British
creditor who was trying to collect a debt from the state of
Virginia. The state had passed a law canceling all debts owed
by Virginians (or the state) to British subjects. However, the
Treaty of Paris, which ended the Revolutionary War and rec-
ognized American independence, ensured the collection of
such debts. This confl ict was resolved when the Court struck
down the state law and upheld Americans’ commitments
under the treaty.^7 Advocates of states’ rights were not happy
with this development, but it was crucial for the national gov-
ernment that the Constitution be applied uniformly rather
than be subject to diff erent interpretations by every state.
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN MARSHALL
favored the idea of judicial review
and claimed this power for the
Court in the Marbury v. Madison
decision.