Marbury v. Madison | BRI’s Homework Help Series
Marbury v. Madison was the Supreme Court case that established judicial review. William Marbury was a judge appointed at the end of John Adams’ presidency, but never got his official commission papers. Once Thomas Jefferson became president, James Madison refused to deliver the commission papers. Marbury took his case to the Supreme Court and wanted a Writ of Mandamus, requiring Madison to deliver the papers. Ultimately, the court stated that Marbury was entitled to his papers, but it was unconstitutional for the courts to issue a Writ of Mandamus. Thus, judicial review was created and the principle of checks and balances was strengthened.
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Case background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison. Setting the precedent of Judicial review, this lesson focuses on the question of whether or not the Supreme Court should have the power to overturn unconstitutional federal laws.
Marbury v. Madison
By the end of this section, you will explain the causes and effects of policy debates in the early republic.
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Judicial Review or Judicial Activism? Marbury v. Madison (1803) Legal scholars consider Marbury v. Madison (1803) a central text for understanding the role of the Courts to interpret law in light of the Constitution, known as judicial review. It is the centerpiece of many constitutional law classes.
More from this Category
Baker v. Carr | Homework Help from the Bill of Rights
In this Homework Help video, learn the story of the landmark Supreme Court case of Baker v. Carr. How did the ruling in this case contribute to the democratic principle of “one person-one vote”?
Gideon v. Wainwright | Homework Help from the Bill of Rights Institute
Does an individual have a right to a lawyer, regardless of the crime he or she is charged with? In 1961, Clarence Gideon was arrested and charged with breaking and entering and petty larceny in Panama City, Florida. His request for a state-provided defense attorney was denied since Florida law only required doing so for capital offense cases. After Gideon was sentenced to 5 years in prison, he argued that Florida violated the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of the right to counsel. The Supreme Court heard Gideon’s case and ruled in a 7-0 decision that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of an attorney applies to states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Dred Scott v. Sandford | Homework Help from the Bill of Rights Institute
The Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857 was brought to the Supreme Court just four years before the start of the Civil War. Dred Scott sued his master for his freedom and Judge Robert Taney ultimately ruled two things. First, African Americans were not citizens and had no right to sue in court. Second, Congress did not have the constitutional authority to ban slavery from the states. This case is considered one of the worst rulings in the history of the Supreme Court.
Brown v. Board of Education | BRI’s Homework Help Series
Brown v. Board of Education was a case brought to the Supreme Court in 1954 after Linda Brown, an African American student in Kansas, was denied access to the white-only schools nearby her house. Future Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall was the lawyer for the case, and argued that segregated schools were inherently unequal. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Linda Brown and declared segregation unconstitutional. This is one of the landmark cases that led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964.
Grutter v. Bollinger | BRI’s Homework Help Series
Grutter v. Bollinger was a case brought to the Supreme Court over the use of Affirmative Action in the college admissions process. The University of Michigan Law School denied acceptance to Barbara Grutter, despite her impressive resume. Grutter, a white woman, believed that her rejection was based on her race. The Supreme Court Justices ultimately ruled that the University of Michigan Law School’s admissions process was constitutional. However, there was doubt among the most conservative Supreme Court justices like Scalia and Rehnquist that affirmative action policy was a constitutional practice for university admission departments to take part in. Affirmative Action is still a highly debated topic today.
Mapp v. Ohio | BRI’s Homework Help Series
Can the police use illegally seized evidence in a court of law? The landmark Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio addressed this issue, and the decision has had a lasting impact in the United States.