US Trends

what is the basis of the supreme court's power of judicial review?

The Supreme Court’s power of judicial review is based on the idea of a written Constitution as supreme law, on Article III’s grant of judicial power over cases “arising under” the Constitution, on the Supremacy Clause, and was firmly established in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison (1803). In simple terms, the Court claimed this power by reasoning that when a law conflicts with the Constitution, judges must follow the Constitution and therefore may declare the law void.

Quick Scoop

  • The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, so courts must apply it over any conflicting statute.
  • Article III extends judicial power to all cases “arising under this Constitution,” which supports courts reviewing the constitutionality of laws and actions.
  • In Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall formally articulated and exercised judicial review, making it a central feature of the Supreme Court’s role.

Constitutional and Theoretical Basis

  • The written Constitution is treated as “fundamental law,” meaning ordinary laws passed by Congress or states cannot override it.
  • When deciding a real dispute, courts must choose which rule to apply; if a statute contradicts the Constitution, judges are bound to apply the Constitution instead.

Textual Hooks in the Constitution

  • Article III gives federal courts jurisdiction over cases “arising under this Constitution,” which implies authority to interpret and apply it, including against conflicting statutes.
  • The Supremacy Clause (Article VI) declares the Constitution, federal laws made in pursuance of it, and treaties as the “supreme law of the land,” binding judges in every state, which logically entails testing other laws against the Constitution.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

  • Marbury v. Madison held that part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because it expanded the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what Article III allowed.
  • Chief Justice Marshall reasoned that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” and if a law conflicts with the Constitution, the court must follow the Constitution and treat the law as void.

Practical and Historical Rationale

  • The power of judicial review grew out of common-law traditions where courts ensure uniform, consistent interpretations of fundamental law across the country.
  • Over time, this power has allowed the Supreme Court to strike down federal and state actions in areas like civil rights, separation of powers, and federal–state relations, shaping modern American governance.

Bottom note: Information gathered from public forums or data available on the internet and portrayed here.