Did John Marshall say a law repugnant to the Constitution is void?
Asked by: Isom Rippin | Last update: June 15, 2026Score: 4.2/5 (61 votes)
Yes, Chief Justice John Marshall famously stated, "A law repugnant to the Constitution is void," in the landmark 1803 Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison, establishing the principle of judicial review, the power of the judiciary to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. This meant that if a law conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution prevails, and the court must disregard the unconstitutional law.
Who said a law repugnant to the Constitution is void?
“A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” With these words written by Chief Justice Marshall, the Supreme Court for the first time declared unconstitutional a law passed by Congress and signed by the President.
How did John Marshall view the Constitution?
Second, Marshall interpreted the Constitution in ways that significantly enhanced the powers of the federal government. He believed that those powers, though enumerated, should be construed expansively in order to accomplish the great ends of government.
What justification does Marshall use to void the Judiciary Act of 1789?
Marshall reasoned that the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with the Constitution. Congress did not have power to modify the Constitution through regular legislation because Supremacy Clause places the Constitution before the laws.
What did John Marshall declare unconstitutional?
Marshall reasoned that Congress could not give the Court powers that were not included in the Constitution, so the part of the Judiciary Act that gave the Court the ability to hear original suits seeking writs of mandamus was unconstitutional.
USH Headlines A Law Repugnant to the Constitution Is Void
What law is Marshall suggesting might be unconstitutional?
Marshall determined that Marbury was justified in his suit. However, the Judiciary Act, on which his claim was based and which allowed the Supreme Court to deal with an original action for mandamus, conflicted with Article III of the Constitution. The Court declared the Judiciary Act unconstitutional.
Is martial law unconstitutional in the United States?
Although the U.S. Constitution makes no specific provision for the imposition of martial law, nearly every State has a constitutional provision authorizing the government to impose martial law.
Did Marbury say what the law is?
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.
Which two laws did the Supreme Court declare to be unconstitutional?
The Supreme Court declared two major New Deal laws unconstitutional: the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) in 1935 and the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) in 1936, striking down key federal attempts to regulate the economy and challenging presidential power, paving the way for later New Deal reforms.
What power did Marshall say was implied by Article III of the Constitution?
But Marshall changed everything by interpreting a power "implied" by Article III. Judicial review, or the power of the courts to overturn a law, was the vehicle he used to create the most powerful judicial branch in the history of the world.
What did John Marshall say was the chief purpose of written constitutions?
Answer and Explanation: Chief Justice John Marshall declared that the chief purpose of written constitutions was to keep the government in check. His establishment of judicial review meant that the government could not just pass any law or act without the courts being able to review the move.
What is John Marshall best known for?
A towering figure in American legal history, John Marshall served as chief justice of the United States Supreme Court for more than three decades, during which time he helped increase the power and prestige of the Federal court system.
How was John Marshall's interpretation of the Constitution different from Thomas Jefferson's?
Jefferson saw the states as constituting a fourth branch of government and wanted states' rights to be preeminent. Marshall emphasized the checks and balances provided by three branches and the constitutionality and, even, practicality, of a “united states” as one nation.
Who holds a law to be unconstitutional?
State lawsuits challenging federal law
A state may challenge the constitutionality of a federal statute by filing a lawsuit in court seeking to declare the federal law unconstitutional. Such a lawsuit is decided by the courts, with the Supreme Court having final jurisdiction.
What was the judicial review as envisioned by Chief Justice John Marshall?
Under his leadership, the "Marshall Court" shaped the law and government of the United States by testing and defining the powers of the newly adopted U.S. Constitution. He established the principle of Judicial Review, whereby the Court has the final say in deciding whether congressional legislation is constitutional.
Is a law repugnant to the Constitution void?
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
What is the most famous Court case of all time?
There isn't one single "most famous" case, but landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases like Marbury v. Madison (judicial review), Brown v. Board of Education (ending school segregation), Miranda v. Arizona (rights of the accused), and Roe v. Wade (abortion rights) are consistently ranked among the most influential, while high-profile public trials like the O.J. Simpson trial (media spectacle) and historical events like the Nuremberg Trials (international justice) are also incredibly famous.
Can the president override the Supreme Court?
No, the President cannot directly overrule a Supreme Court decision, as the Court's constitutional rulings are nearly final, but they can challenge them through the appeals process, and Congress can pass new laws or propose constitutional amendments to effectively change the outcome, while Presidents have historically respected Court authority, though some argue they don't always have to comply with judgments they deem unconstitutional.
How did Marbury v. Madison violate the Constitution?
Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) Congress does not have the power to pass laws that override the Constitution, such as by expanding the scope of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction.
What is the Article 111 of the Constitution?
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Can the president make military decisions without Congress?
It provides that the president can send the U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by Congress's "statutory authorization", or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces".