What were Chief Justice Marshall's reasons for deciding the Supreme Court could review acts of Congress?

Answer 1

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)

Chief Justice Marshall had several lines of reasoning explaining why the Judicial branch (most particularly the US Supreme Court) had the right and obligation to determine the constitutionality of acts of Congress:

1. The principles of the Constitution and the authority from which they proceed is Supreme over any enacted law.
2. Congress couldn't be allowed to write laws that conflicted with or changed the Constitution, or it would wield so much power it could change constitutional principles by simple acts of legislation, rendering the Constitution meaningless.
3. The powers of the legislature were deliberately defined and limited.
4. Article III of the Constitution explicitly conferred authority over all legal matters to the Supreme Court: "[t]he judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court..."
5. The Justices were required to take an oath upholding the Constitution, implying they had responsibility for maintaining its integrity. "It is emphatically the duty and province of the Judicial Department to say what the law is."
6. An act contrary to the Constitution cannot be a law, must be considered void, and cannot be upheld by the judiciary.

In summary, Marshall wrote:

"Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him?

"If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath becomes equally a crime.

"It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.

"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."

Answer 2

Chief Justice Marshall's reasons for deciding that the Supreme Court could review acts of Congress stemmed from his interpretation of the Constitution. He believed that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land and that it was the Court's role to interpret and apply it. He argued that judicial review was necessary to ensure that acts of Congress were in line with the Constitution and did not exceed the powers granted to the federal government.