At the center of Marbury v. Madison was a single piece of paper: William Marbury's signed and sealed commission, which was never delivered. The fight over that one document led the Supreme Court to claim the power of judicial review.
Share
June 22, 2026
The Supreme Court's most important power isn't actually written in the Constitution. See how a fight over one undelivered letter in 1803 gave the Court the power of judicial review, with discussion questions and media literacy activities.
Share
Try this with your students: Open the U.S. Constitution and find the sentence that lets the Supreme Court throw out a law. Article III? The amendments? Keep looking. It isn't there.
The most powerful thing the court does today, striking down laws as unconstitutional, was never written into the Constitution. The justices claimed that power for themselves in a single 1803 case, brought by a man who never even received the job he sued over.
It's called Marbury v. Madison. In this lesson, you'll learn how Chief Justice John Marshall built the foundation of judicial review, why a ruling from 1803 still shapes Supreme Court fights today, and how to vet the sources, including the video below, that explain it to you.
After Marbury v. Madison established judicial review in 1803, the Supreme Court did not strike down another federal law for 54 years. When it finally did, in 1857, it was the Dred Scott decision, widely regarded as one of the worst rulings in the court's history. Source: National Archives
This short video (approx. four minutes) walks through the political standoff behind the case and how Marshall used it to establish judicial review. As you watch, look for the twist at its center: how Marshall could rule for Marbury and still hand him a loss. And hold onto two questions for the media literacy section below: Who made this video, and how would you check whether they're reliable?
In his final days as president, John Adams rushed to install dozens of last-minute appointees from his own party, the "midnight appointments," to preserve his influence after Thomas Jefferson took office. One of them, William Marbury, was named a justice of the peace for the District of Columbia, but his commission was never delivered. When Jefferson's secretary of state, James Madison, refused to hand it over, Marbury sued, asking the Supreme Court to order its delivery.
Marshall was cornered. Order Madison to act and risk being ignored, and the court looks powerless; do nothing, and it looks like a pushover. His way out was ingenious: He ruled that Marbury deserved his commission, but that the law Marbury sued under, Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, was unconstitutional, because it stretched the court's authority beyond what Article III allows. So, the court had no power to help him.
By striking down an act of Congress, Marshall established that the Supreme Court (not Congress, not the president) has the final word on what the Constitution means. That principle, judicial review, underpins nearly every landmark ruling since, from Brown v. Board of Education to today's biggest cases.
Judicial review has never been free of controversy. Supporters see it as the guardrail that keeps the other branches inside constitutional limits; critics, going back to Jefferson, argue it hands unelected, life-tenured judges too much power over elected officials. Both sides are fighting over the question Marshall answered in 1803: Who gets the last word, and what happens when the branches disagree?
That question is live again today. The court has been working through a term full of disputes over executive power, citizenship and elections; and lawmakers have floated proposals about its size, including a constitutional amendment to permanently fix the number of justices at nine that recently advanced out of a House committee. Each debate circles back to Marbury: where the court's power comes from, and what checks it. For a closer look at how the court uses that power today (often through fast, lightly explained orders), see this companion lesson, What Is the Shadow Docket?
Historical Context: Marshall gave up a small power in the moment to claim a far larger one for the long run. Why might building power that way succeed where simply seizing it would fail?
Power and Accountability: Judicial review isn't written in the Constitution. The court gave the power to itself. Does that make it any less legitimate?
Civic Reasoning: The court has no army and no budget to enforce its rulings. What should happen if a president or Congress simply refuses to comply?
Multiple Perspectives: Jefferson thought each branch should interpret the Constitution for itself. How might American government look different today if his view had won out?
Personal Connection: Think of a no-win situation where every choice cost you something. What does a "win by losing" strategy like Marshall's actually require?
The video above explains the case clearly and accurately, but did you notice we never said who made it? It comes from a channel called "Landmark Cases in a Nutshell," and that's the point: A source can be correct and hard to identify. Before you trust or share an explainer, dig a little.
Source Check: Search the channel name. Can you find who runs it, their credentials, or an institution behind it? Does being hard to identify make a source wrong, or just worth a second look?
Compare the Sources: Watch two more explanations of Marbury, and pay attention to who made each one and how that might shape it:
Do a little digging on each organization's mission and funding (a quick search like "Bill of Rights Institute funding" or "National Constitution Center about" is enough). Then compare: Where do all three videos agree on the facts? Does any leave something out, or frame Marshall's choice differently? Here's the real question: Does knowing who's behind a source, and who pays for it, change how you'd use it? And does having a point of view automatically make a source wrong?
Spot the Slip (and Weigh It): The anchor video gets the case right, but it makes one real error: It calls the Democratic-Republicans the "Anti-Federalists." Those groups are related but not the same. The Anti-Federalists opposed ratifying the Constitution in the 1780s, while the Democratic-Republican Party was formed in the 1790s under Jefferson and Madison. On an AP exam, treating them as identical would cost you points. So, here's the question that matters more than the error itself: Does one slip like this disqualify the whole video? Weigh it. Is it a core mistake that changes what the case decided, or an imprecise bit of background? How does it stack up against everything the video gets right? And how would you confirm a detail you're unsure about, say, by checking it against a source like the National Archives? Strong media literacy isn't "trust everything" or "trust nothing." It's calibration: catch the error, judge how much it actually matters, and verify before you rely on it.
Claim Check: The video calls Marbury "arguably the most significant case in Supreme Court history." Fact, opinion, or both? What evidence would you need to judge it?
Word Watch: Listen for how each of the three videos describes Marshall's ruling: "genius," "strategic," "principled," a "power grab." What does each word choice reveal about how that source views judicial review?
Verify Before Sharing: A viral post claims the court "just gave itself unlimited power." How would you check that against what Marbury actually decided?
Goes deeper if time allows.
Socratic Seminar. Debate: "Should an unelected Supreme Court have the final word on what the Constitution means?" Have students prepare evidence from both Marshall's and Jefferson's perspectives, and argue the side they personally disagree with.
Op-Ed. Students write 500 words on "Is judicial review good for democracy?" Or, as a citizen in 1803, they write a letter to the editor reacting to the ruling using only what people knew at the time. Trade drafts with someone who took the opposite view.
If this sparked questions about where the Court's power comes from and how it uses it, here's where to take your students next.
What was Marbury v. Madison? Marbury v. Madison (1803) was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which Chief Justice John Marshall established judicial review, the power of courts to declare laws unconstitutional.
What is judicial review, and where does it come from? Judicial review is the authority of courts to strike down laws and government actions that conflict with the Constitution. It isn't written in the Constitution; the Supreme Court established it in Marbury v. Madison in 1803.
Why does Marbury v. Madison still matter today? It made the Supreme Court the final interpreter of the Constitution, with the power to overturn acts of Congress and presidential actions. Nearly every major constitutional ruling since rests on that foundation, and today's debates over the court's authority trace back to it.
