The 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison established judicial review as a central check in the U.S. system, while debate continues about how courts should exercise it.
Marbury v. Madison began with William Marbury's request for a judicial order after his commission as a justice of the peace was not delivered. The case became a landmark when Chief Justice John Marshall explained the Court's role in deciding whether a law conflicted with the Constitution. The National Archives describes the decision as establishing judicial review within the system of checks and balances.
Judicial review is exercised through cases, arguments, and written reasoning. Courts must explain their interpretations, and the other branches retain their constitutional duties. People can disagree with a ruling while respecting an independent process. Constitutional government requires both the authority to act and a willingness to justify that action.
A legal doctrine is not a shortcut to a preferred political result. In an actual dispute, the question is what the Constitution and law require. Readers can examine the record and a court's reasoning while recognizing that constitutional interpretation remains open to public debate.
Comments on Marbury v. Madison: the Court’s role in constitutional review