The Evolution of the Supreme Court in American
History
Throughout history countless supreme court decisions have shaped the parameters which define the limits and
extent of governmental powers. Decisions like Marbury vs. Madison extending judicial review to the court or
McCullogh vs. Maryland allowing federal government to create and establish a national bank are just two
examples where the court made key constitutional interpretations to resolve issues of government powers.
These two and other cases dealing with similar questions will demonstrate the nature to which the court
decisions have checked and defined governmental powers.
The famed case of Marbury vs. Madison (1803) was crucial in it's expansion of the power of the judiciary,
through establishing Judicial review. This case arose in response to the refusal of President Thomas Jefferson to
allow Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the commission of newly appointed Justice of the Peace
William Marbury. The two key components of this case are the Judiciary Act of 1789 passed by Congress
which granted the Supreme Court "authority to issue writs of mandamus"... (Epstein & Walker, 66) among
other things and article 3 section 2 of the constitution ruling on appellate and original jurisdiction. Marbury
brought his case forward on grounds that under this new law the court was to issue a writ of mandamus and give
him his commission. Chief Justice John Marshall cites that Marbury has a right to his commission and a remedy
but not through this the Supreme Court, answering the three key questions in the case. Despite not ruling in
favor of Marbury, Justice Marshall defines the court's right to Judicial Review in reasoning that article 3 section
2 of the constitution overrules the Judiciary Act of 1789. "It is a proposition to plain to be contested that the
constitution controls any legislation repugnant to it; or that the legislature may alter the constitution by an
ordinary act" (Walker& Epstein, 75). This statement from Marshall in the majority decision exhibits clearly that
the Constitution reigns supreme over any congressional acts seeking to overrule it and essentially strikes down a
law of congress deemed unconstitutional. Marshall here exercises the court right to review and strike down a
law conflicting with the constitution, indirectly insinuating the right to review constitutionality of laws.
Marshall continues to reinforce the court's right to make this landmark decision by saying "So if a law be in
opposition to the constitution ... the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This
is of the very essence of judicial duty" ( Epstein & Walker ). Here his language specifically demonstrates it the
specific duty of the court to rule as to the constitutionality of laws passed by congress, despite not being evident
in the decision.
Another case that served through it's use of language to increase power to a ranch of government was
McCullogh vs. Maryland (1819), increasing legislative power. In this case Congress created the second bank of
the United States in 1816, which as described in the text, had never been deemed constitutional up to that point.
Maryland imposed a 2% tax on state branches but a cashier named McCullogh refused to pay. The primary
questions were whether congress could establish a national bank and whether Maryland had the right to tax it.
Ultimately, Marshall would answer yes to the first question and increase legislative power significantly through
his broad definition of the necessary and proper clause or the implied powers of congress. Marshall states that
despite Maryland's interpretation of the word necessary in the elastic clause as referring to a "physical
necessity" (Epstein &Walker, 160), Marshall says necessary grants congress power to utilized implied powers
where "one thing is convenient, or useful, or essential to another". This broad interpretation and wording
symbolizes the far reaching nature of the implied powers of congress to carry out it's enumerated powers listed
in the constitution. Marshall clearly states that congress has powers going beyond just those enumerated in the
constitution. So, for example this would mean congressional power to regulate commerce and collect taxes and
such would allot congress the power to establish a national bank according to the court.
In the bizarre case of In re Neagle (1890) deals with the question of whether the President had the right to
assign a bodyguard to Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field. David Neagle was appointed to be his bodyguard.
Neagle would kill the man, David Terry who he was protecting Field from, leading to the questions of what
right Neagle had and whether the President could assign the bodyguard without congressional approval. This
case highlighted article 2 section 3 of the constitution dealing with the ability of the President to faithfully
execute the laws and the 'take care' clause. The Court takes on the view of the stewardship theory which
envisions this clause as a power in and of itself, going above and beyond the enumerated powers. "The duties
that are thus imposed upon him he is further enabled to perform by the recognition in the constitution and the
creation by acts of congress, of executive departments" (Epstein & Walker, 212). This statement characterizes
the expansive view of the court that by such acts as creating numerous executive departments that the Executive
power is an all encompassing one that goes well beyond simply those stated in article 2 section 3.
A case where in a way the court limits itself is in Hein vs. Freedom of Religion (2007) where it is argued
whether tax payers have the right to challenge a program instituted by the President to support religious
organizations with tax payer money. The court through a narrow plurality and concurring majority opinion rule
5-4 against the tax payer rights, arguing it is not justiciable, meaning it is not able to be decided upon by the
court. Judge Alito says President and congress are the nexus between constituents and there is no standing upon
which to rule on this case. On such issues as how government money is being spent and tax payer grievances,
the court makes clear there inability to judge such cases.
A key limitation on legislative power came in the form of scaling back the power of legislative veto in INS vs.
Chadha (1983). Limiting the Legislative Veto in the manner in which it occurred in this case was critical in
ensuring that the legislative branch not be allowed to unilaterally act unconstitutionally. Violating the principle
of bi cameral legislation and overstepping bounds clearly explained in the constitution would be catastrophic in
my estimation and the court set a clear precedent against such actions by the legislature. The House attempting
to overrule a judges ruling suspending the deportation of Jagdish Chadha with no record of vote and debate can
not be allowed. The language reinforces this it was the "profound conviction of the Framers that that the powers
conferred on congress were the powers to be most carefully circumscribed" (Walker & Epstein, 280). This
statement was said exemplifying how Presidental veto was offered as a means to curb legislative power, which
the framers feared would be the most powerful branch.
Another curb in power, this time of the executive branch comes in the case of U.S. vs. Nixon (1972) which said
that President Nixon must hand over tapes related to the Watergate scandal and does not have absolute
Executive Privilege. The court acknowledging executive privilege but saying it is not absolute is critical in that
it disallowed the President from overstepping other people's rights and utilizing inherent powers for personal
gain which would be unchecked without such a ruling. Nixon essentially was violating the rights of seven other
citizens whose 5th amendment rights were jeopardized, making it impossible to run fair trials while their being
no national security reason to put into effect such a rule. The President would be dangerously close to being an
unchecked were he to utilize executive privilege where the country was not at risk but the trials of seven other
defendants was and it was an absolute necessity to have a 9-0 unanimous decision. The court emphatically
refers to Marbury vs. Madison as precedent for it's right to judge the constitutionality of the law and the
separation of powers principle does not grant the President the right to absolute Executive privilege. "Absent a
claim of need to protect military, diplomatic... secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that... interest
in confidentiality of Presidental communications is significantly diminished" ( Walker & Epstein, 242). This
language provides clear definition of the parameters through which the President can use executive privilege
and restricts it to cases where national security are at risk, setting a clear precedent.
Three examples of cases where the timing of when the cases occurred had an impact on their decisions were
The Prize Cases, Ex Parte vs. Quirin, Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld. Each of these cases were affected in different ways
in different era's as the Prize cases came on the heals of the civil war, Hamdan comes in the middle of a unique
all encompassing war on terror.
In the Prize Cases (1863) President Abraham Lincolm issued a naval blockade on ports in the south without
congressional approval. Four ships brought a suit when they were captured before any hostilities were declared
by congress and wanted their possessions and claimed illegal activity in the form of the blockades. Did the
President have the right to take such an action without congressional approval and before and formal declaration
of hostilities were made? It was ruled that the President did have this right as formal war hostilities did not need
to be officially declared for there to be an imminent threat of war. It is undeniable that the case occurring in
1861 at a time where eight states had succeeded from the union and the country was in disarray, that tensions
were at an all time high and that ineveitably played a role in the decision. Never was their a time in U.S. history
similar where countries broke off from the Union and the President attempted to keep the country from falling
apart. In 1863, the middle of the civil war era when the case was decided, the court could not possibly rule that
because no formal declarations were made the blockade was off limits, as that would only undermine
Presidental authority in times of war based on a technicality.
The Case of Ex Parte Quirin (1942) was also significantly altered by the political landscape subsisting at the
time in which it occurred. When eight men ordered by Hitler to orchestrate a sabatoge plan to destroy American
infrastructure, they were caught and sentenced to military tribunal. This was done because Congress had the
right to sentence those who broke the laws of war to military tribunal and by removing their military clothes and
acting as civilians while hiding explosive devices, they were guilty of that. In 1942, World War 2 was at it's
peak and Hitler's reign was a threat to the greater world. When President Roosevelt issued his statement
officially suspending court rights and subjecting all those spies caught of warring nations to military tribunal,
this was a clear statement that the nation is at war and this proclamation is directed at those warring with the
country. "all persons who are subjects... of any nation at war with the United States... and are charged with
committing or preparing to commit sabotage, espionage... shall be subject to the laws of war and to the
jurisdiction of military tribunals" (Walker & Epstein, 302). This proclamation from President Franklin
Roosevelt exhibits how this is unique to those subjects of warring nation at a time of international hostilities on
a massive scale.
In Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld (2004), Hamdi was an American citizen captured in Afghanistan and an enemy
combatant and subsequently sent to Guantonamo Bay to be detained. Hamdi claims that as a citizen he is
entitled to contest this status in court while the government says that with the war on terror and the
Authorization of Military Force Act grants the President to detain indefinitely as part of the on going war on
terror effort. The Court rules that as an American citizen and lack of major hostilities, Hamdi deserves a
"meaningful opportunity to contest the facts designating him an enemy combatant"... (Walker & Epstein, 324).
The timing of the case being heard was key in that the case came years after Hamdi was detained and held in
Guantanomo Bay, Cuba and it was not deemed pressing to suspend his rights to court access and habeus corpus
as three years had passed since 9/11 and his involvement. The AUMF at the time also never said anything about
detention and this coming before the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 said Justices Souter and Ginsberg, can not
single handedly suspend the citizens right to habeus corpus and fair trial.
Overall, the Supreme Court has transformed into the moral compass of sorts for defining governmental powers
and it's decisions on such matters have proven far reaching in their effects. From defining a broad scope of
powers from judicial review, to executive privilege and habeus corpus rights in war time, the court has served to
apply the meaning of the constitution to practical situations and define governmental powers.