John Marshall Didn’t Invent Judicial Review

National Review

by Dan McLaughlin

February 24, 2026

AI-Generated Deep Dive Summary

John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, is often mistakenly credited with inventing judicial review, the power of courts to declare laws unconstitutional. However, this pivotal concept was not the creation of a single inventive judge but rather emerged over time as a natural extension of the judiciary’s role in interpreting the law. The idea that judges could invalidate legislation deemed incompatible with higher legal principles or constitutional provisions had roots stretching back centuries, particularly in English common law and early American jurisprudence. Judicial review gained prominence during the early years of the U.S. republic, as courts at both the state and federal levels began asserting the authority to strike down laws that conflicted with established legal or constitutional norms. The famous case *Marbury v. Madison* (1803), often cited as the birthplace of judicial review in America, actually built upon an existing foundation. In that case, Marshall’s Supreme Court invalidated a law because it violated the Constitution, but this decision was not groundbreaking—it reflected a well-established practice among judges. The development of judicial review is significant for several reasons. It underscores the gradual evolution of constitutional law and the role of courts in interpreting and enforcing the Constitution. This process was influenced by legal traditions from England, where judges had long served as guardians of the rule of law, ensuring that legislative and executive actions adhered to established principles. In America, this concept was further refined, leading to the formal establishment of judicial review as a cornerstone of constitutional governance. Understanding the history of judicial review matters for readers interested in politics and government because it reveals how constitutional principles are not static but evolve through legal interpretation. This evolution highlights the interplay between law and politics, as courts navigate complex questions about权力 boundaries and constitutional limits on legislative authority. By recognizing the collective development of judicial review, we gain a deeper appreciation for how the U.S. legal system has grown and adapted over time. In summary, while John Marshall’s leadership helped formalize judicial review in the United States, the concept itself predates his tenure and was shaped by centuries of legal thought and practice. This historical perspective challenges common misconceptions about the origins of constitutional law and emphasizes the collaborative nature of judicial development. For those following political and legal developments, this understanding reinforces the importance of an independent judiciary in upholding constitutional principles and ensuring the rule of law.

Verticals

politicsconservative

Originally published on National Review on 2/24/2026