Which case is commonly cited as establishing judicial review?

Which case is commonly cited as establishing judicial review?

• A. Marbury v. Madison
• B. McCulloch v. Maryland
• C. Gibbons v. Ogden
• D. Dred Scott v. Sandford

Answer: (A)

Judicial review is the power of the courts to interpret the Constitution and strike down laws or government actions that conflict with it. Marbury v. Madison is the case most often cited for establishing this power because it permanently set the precedent that the Supreme Court can review federal laws and executive actions and declare them unconstitutional when they violate the Constitution. In that decision, the Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, faced a request for a writ of mandamus to compel the delivery of a commission. The Court acknowledged that Marbury had a right to the commission, but it also held that the specific part of the Judiciary Act that gave the Court the power to issue such writs went beyond what the Constitution permits. By declaring that portion of the Act unconstitutional, the Court asserted that it has the authority to interpret the Constitution and to nullify laws that conflict with it. This established the principle of judicial review and positioned the judiciary as a co-equal branch with a check on both Congress and the executive. McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden are important for understanding federal power and how the Constitution limits or extends authority in different contexts, but they do not establish the principle of judicial review. Dred Scott v. Sandford is infamous for its moral and constitutional failings and does not contribute the principle of judicial review either.

Judicial review is the power of the courts to interpret the Constitution and strike down laws or government actions that conflict with it. Marbury v. Madison is the case most often cited for establishing this power because it permanently set the precedent that the Supreme Court can review federal laws and executive actions and declare them unconstitutional when they violate the Constitution.

In that decision, the Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, faced a request for a writ of mandamus to compel the delivery of a commission. The Court acknowledged that Marbury had a right to the commission, but it also held that the specific part of the Judiciary Act that gave the Court the power to issue such writs went beyond what the Constitution permits. By declaring that portion of the Act unconstitutional, the Court asserted that it has the authority to interpret the Constitution and to nullify laws that conflict with it. This established the principle of judicial review and positioned the judiciary as a co-equal branch with a check on both Congress and the executive.

McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden are important for understanding federal power and how the Constitution limits or extends authority in different contexts, but they do not establish the principle of judicial review. Dred Scott v. Sandford is infamous for its moral and constitutional failings and does not contribute the principle of judicial review either.