1 The Significant Marshall: A Review of Chief Justice John Marshall s Impact on Constitutional Law Andrew Armagost Pennsylvania State University PL SC 471 American Constitutional Law
2 Abstract Over the course of more than two centuries of Supreme Court decisions, no other Chief Justice has contributed to defining and establishing fundamentals of constitutional law as John Marshall. Inheriting a federal judiciary which lacked most of the common legal concepts found today, Chief Justice John Marshall was an essential contribution to the development of the federal government through the various decisions he and his fellow Justices held.
3 American constitutional law, throughout more than two centuries, has been developed through the many Supreme Court landmark cases and by some of the most profound legal scholars. Deciding issues relating to judicial power, national supremacy, the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Contract Clause, and limitations of the Bill of Rights, the Marshall Court was the fundamental institution establishing definitions and precedence for future cases. Unlike any other period of time since the Marshall Court, their decisions created the foundations for the development of constitutional law. Through the Marshall Court's landmark decisions in Marbury v. Madison, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee and Cohens v. Virginia, McCulloch v. Maryland, Gibbons v. Ogden, and Barron v. Baltimore, Chief Justice John Marshall was one of the most significant and influential contributors to American constitutional law. Prior to Chief Justice John Marshall s appointment in 1801, the Supreme Court had significantly less authority and influence on the operation of the federal government. Initially, the judicial branch of the federal government was established by Article III, Section I, which read; The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. While this section of the constitution created the federal judiciary, it was the enactment of the Judiciary Act of 1789 by the First United States Congress that outlined the details of the court system. This act created one Chief Justice and five Associate Justices on the Supreme Court; gave appellate jurisdiction to the court over the circuit and district courts, the state courts which either held invalid any statute or treaty of the United States or held valid any state law or practice that was challenged as being inconsistent with the federal constitution, treaties, or law; created the 13 judicial districts and the
4 federal district and circuit courts; and created the Office of Attorney General. This legislation was the fundamental act of Congress which created the structure and authority of the federal judiciary. However, the authority of the Supreme Court had not yet been fully established, despite the enactment of the law. Under Section Two of Article III, the Supreme Court was given original jurisdiction in certain circumstances and appellate jurisdiction in all other matters brought before the court. Yet the complete extent to which the court had authority in original and appellate jurisdiction was not explicitly defined and the Marshall Court would be the ultimate decision in the matter. As we will later discuss, the Marshall Court s landmark decisions greatly defined the authority of the court as the Justices thought was initially intended by the authors of the Constitution. Today, these landmark decisions are referred to as judicial review and national supremacy. By the definitions provided by the Marshall Court, the authority and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was more appropriately established. During the first three years of the Supreme Court, few cases were brought before the Justices. Under Chief Justice John Jay from 1789 to 1794, five cases were heard, all but one of which had little significance in the operations of the federal government. The most significant case of the Jay Court was Chisholm v. Georgia, which granted the authority to the federal judiciary to hear cases between private citizens and a state. In response, Congress established the Eleventh Amendment, which created sovereign immunity, prohibiting citizens of one state directly bringing suit against another state without that state s consent. It was later, under Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth that the Supreme Court made the next two influential decisions. First, in Hollingsworth v. Virginia, the Supreme Court held that the President had no role in the ratification of a Constitutional amendment, specifically deciding on the ratification of the Eleventh Amendment and George Washington s role. Second, the Court exercised for the first time its original jurisdiction between two States in New York v. Connecticut. Near the end of John Adams s term as President, the chief executor nominated, and Congress approved, the appointment of John Marshall in early 1801. Arguably one of the most important
5 appointments to the Supreme Court, the new Chief Justice would provide an influential and intellectually profound philosophy to the court. Marshall s impact, however, could surely be considered the result of his personal and professional development. Born the eldest of fifteen to Thomas Marshall, a farmer and leader of Fauquier, John Marshall gained his values and habits from his father s service as surveyor, justice of the peace, sheriff, vestryman, militia leader, and burgess of the county (Hobson, 1996). His early formal education consisted of one year at the school of Reverend Archibald Campbell and one year under the tutoring of James Thomson. Following these two years, Marshall served as an officer of the county militia and an officer of the Continental Army for the Virginia line. By the end of the war, Marshall had attended lectures of Professor George Wythe at the College of William and Mary between battles, constituting his formal education in law. Unlike most legal practitioners at the time who commonly learned from apprenticeships, Marshall gained formal study in law from these attendances, which most scholars suggest gave him an important advantage over others in the profession. In 1780, Marshall was admitted to the Bar and began his private practice, which he continued until entering politics two years later. His career in politics began by being elected to the Virginia House of Delegates, serving from 1782 until 1789 and 1795 to 1796. During the absence of this seat between 1789 and 1795, Marshall served as a Virginia delegate to the Virginia convention, which was responsible for the ratification or rejection of the proposed Constitution and continued his private practice on the side. After serving as a delegate to the Virginia House and prior to his appointment as Chief Justice, John Marshall was nominated and held numerous political positions. Over these years, Marshall declined three appointments; the Attorney General of the United States, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and a minister to France. However, Marshall accepted an appointment to a commission representing the United States in France and was elected to the United States House of Representatives for a district in Virginia. Finally, upon the resignation of Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth due to poor health,
6 John Marshall was appointed the successor to the position of the court s leader during the tense Presidential election between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. According to Charles Hobson, John Marshall s philosophy and definition of common law is human reason applied by courts, not capriciously but in a regular train of decisions, to human affairs according to the circumstances of the nation, the necessity of the times, and the general state of things (Hobson, 1996). Hobson suggests that Marshall s most important personal characteristic was that, while he gained the scholarly experience and skills from his formal legal education, Marshall attained a practical understanding and acquired mastery of common law principles through application and preparation in his private practice. Thus, as Hobson might suggest, Marshall possessed a well-rounded understanding of law that balanced what he had learned from the College with the experiences and application within his law practice in which few others in the legal profession had developed. The development of his knowledge in law, from formal education and practice, was fundamental to building his philosophy and definition of common law cited by Hobson. With well-developed legal knowledge, John Marshall led many of the court s decisions during his term. His leadership as Chief Justice is illustrated in the opinions of the Marshall Court and his influence was a significant element in the cases which were of constitutional matters. Through the decisions in Marbury v. Madison which established judicial review, Barron v. Baltimore which defined the limitations of the Bill of Rights, and Martin v. Hunter s Lessee and Cohens v. Virginia which established national supremacy, the Marshall Court made important contributions to constitutional law. The first significant decision made by the Marshall Court was Marbury v. Madison. During the tense struggle between Federalists and Republicans, the switch from the administration of John Adams to Thomas Jefferson was surely controversial. The Marbury case dealt with the discrepancies that arose from this switch. In sum, the administration, after the previous administration failed to deliver commission to William Marbury in time, decided to ignore their responsibility for delivery and instead,
7 gave it to a person of Jefferson s preference. John Marshall, delivering the opinion of the court, held that Marbury, despite the switch from one administration to another, was entitled to his commission by virtue of due process and had a right to remediation. However, Marshall s most significant finding, which established judicial review, held that Congress s delegation of authority in granting writ of mandamus outside of its appellate jurisdiction, given by the enactment of the Judiciary Act of 1789, was unconstitutional and the court, therefore, denied the petition. In establishing judicial review, John Marshall and his court decided one of the most important cases in constitutional law. Because of the function that judicial review gave to the Supreme Court, the judiciary had developed a significant influence in the operation of the federal government. Unlike any other decision, Marbury v. Madison provided the Supreme Court the authority to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional and consequently creating a voice for the court in the creation and removal of laws by the federal government. As most legal scholars would support, Marshall s decision marked the beginning of the federal judiciary s power and authority in government affairs. According to William Nelson, the initial reactions by the public and government officials were primarily positive (Nelson, 2000). Nelson attributes several reasons to the surprisingly positive opinion by the people. First, there existed the perception by the public that in establishing judicial review, the Supreme Court was removing itself from the political stream of government and the people were supportive of a politically separate judiciary. A second reason Nelson gives notes that while this case established judicial review to the federal courts, the legal concept of judicial review was already being developed by the states and therefore was not relatively an original doctrine. Furthermore, Nelson suggests that since a significant amount of Americans were property owners, the court s ruling that the law may serve as a protection of private property and as an actor in remediation of a violation of a property right greatly pleased the general public.
8 While Marbury v. Madison was a significant decision that established the Supreme Court s authority in relation to the federal government, this case was not the only of its type by the Marshall Court. Through Martin v. Hunter s Lessee, Cohens v. Virginia, and McCulloch v. Maryland, the Supreme Court created national supremacy, providing the appellate jurisdiction and authority to the federal courts in cases appealed from the states. In Cohens v. Virginia, the declaration of the federal authority over state courts was clearly provided by John Marshall, who stated, The constitution and laws of a State, so far as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States, are absolutely void.. The exercise of the appellate power over those judgments of the State tribunals which may contravene the constitution or laws of the United States, is, we believe, essential to the attainment of objects [of vital interest to the nation]. Unlike Marbury v. Madison, the states reaction to the Marshall Court s decision was generally negative as the states argued their sovereign immunity from federal court s authority provided by the Eleventh Amendment. However, the decisions in Martin, Cohens and McCulloch provided further authority to the federal judiciary that had not been declared previously and which the states must have accepted. The Marshall Court further developed its influence in the operations of the federal government and made significant contributions to American constitutional law through the decision in Barron v. Baltimore. Whereas the previous cases discussed have expanded the role of the federal judiciary and the constitution, the court in Barron explicitly defined the limitations of the protections granted by the Bill of Rights by holding that such rights provided protection exclusively from the federal government and not from the states. As a result, the Baron decision provided a limitation of federal power by granting the states authority to establish their own protections rather than imposing the Bill of Rights to the states. The Marshall Court s reasoning held that the text of the Bill of Rights, had the authors wanted the application of the amendments be to the states, would have expressed such wishes within the document s writing. As Marshall noted in his decision, the Fifth Amendment, which was the constitutional issue before the court, did not explicitly mention the protections granted by the Fifth
9 Amendment shall be applied to the states and therefore did not provide protection unless granted by the state. In McCulloch v. Maryland, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall established precedence to issues regarding the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution. Possibly one of his most profound decisions, John Marshall defined the basic principles and authority of the federal legislature. Although Marshall upheld the constitutionality of Congress establishment of a National Bank pursuant to its powers granted by the Necessary and Proper Clause, the decision clearly forewarned Congress that its discretion was not boundless (Hobson, 1996, p. 161) as to give the federal legislature unlimited authority and assured to the people of the nation that such overstep from its granted power was subject to the striking by the federal courts and the political discourse of the people. One of the more significant aspects of this case, as mentioned by Ira Strauber, is that [w]hile ambiguity about sovereignty is inevitable, Marshall does not succumb to it; rather he uses it to confirm Maryland s positive-law authority while denying the appropriateness of state sovereignty theory for describing constitutional politics (Shevory, 1989, p. 141). Evidently, the impact of McCulloch was significant since the decision established important precedence to the Necessary and Proper Clause as well as greatly illustrated the insightful and magnificent legal ideology and personality of John Marshall. The Marshall Court provided further definition and precedence to constitutional law by addressing the Commerce Clause in the court s decision in Gibbons v. Ogden. In this decision, John Marshall first examined the relationship of the state and the federal government. Second, Marshall defined commerce regarding Congress authority as constituting not only the buying and selling of goods, but commercial intercourse, which intended to include all commercial relations. Finally, the Chief Justice analyzed the extent of the commerce power in regards to among the states, holding that Congress interstate commerce power did not stop at the boundaries of the states, but rather involved commerce between one state and another. Through this ruling, Marshall provided prescient
10 anticipation of the consolidating potential of the commerce clause (Hobson, 1996, p. 145) through its inherently broad scope of Congressional powers. Much like the previous cases, Gibbons further expanded the positive authority of the federal government. Surely, John Marshall served as one of the most significant Chief Justices of the US Supreme Court, contributing to the creation of numerous constitutional precedents. The court s decisions in Marbury v. Madison, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee and Cohens v. Virginia, McCulloch v. Maryland, Gibbons v. Ogden, and Barron v. Baltimore were relatively profound cases which defined and applied matter of judicial power, national supremacy, the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Contract Clause, and limitations of the Bill of Rights. Much of these decisions would remain primarily unchanged throughout the remainder of the nineteenth century. Few other Supreme Court periods have had the impact on the establishment and development of constitutional matter as the Marshall Court. However, the Chase Court, led by Chief Justice Salmon Chase between 1864 and 1873, did also have similar significance in its decisions, particularly Ex parte McCardle, Mississippi v. Johnson, Paul v. Virginia, and the Slaughterhouse Cases. Whereas the Marshall Court provided significant precedence to issues of federal judicial authority and certain constitutional clauses, the Chase Court made significant contributions through decisions regarding the authority of the Supreme Court in issuing injunctions against the President, Congressional power to limit the Supreme Court s appellate jurisdiction, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Commerce Clause, and the separation of powers. Known as the Conservative Court Eras, the Supreme Court between 1889 1937, under Chief Justices Fuller, White, Taft, and Hughes, was another influential period in the development of constitutional law. Throughout this period the Supreme Court decided several important cases which dealt with the Commerce Clause, the Taxation and Spending power of Congress, the Takings Clause, and the Bill of Rights. In contrast to the expansion of federal power through the Marshall Court decisions,
11 the Conservative Court era provided for the limitation of the federal government, favoring private interests over government police powers. It was this court that ultimately fell to the more federalism approach sought after during the Roosevelt administration by the effects of the notorious switch in time. Despite the important impact the Conservative Court Era had in the development of constitutional law, the Marshall Court provided a greater foundation in precedence and definition and lacked the inevitable overturning that the Conservative Court would experience. Certainly, therefore, the Marshall Court was a more significant era of Supreme Court history in establishing constitutional law. Herbert Johnson accurately illustrates John Marshall, stating that [n]ot only did Marshall establish the Court s practice of issuing majority opinions, but his mode of analyzing constitutional issues provided American federal law with a precise vocabulary and a clear view of what the issues would be in defining the nature of the Union (Johnson H. A., 1997, p. 261). Indeed, Marshall s carefully construed decisions were specifically drawn to meet the needs of the United States in order to properly establish the federal judiciary as a contributor to maintaining the Union. More importantly, Johnson appropriately characterizes Marshall s significance in noting that, [t]o this day, discourse about constitutional law must begin with Marshall s basic principles (Johnson H. A., 1997, p. 262).
12 References Clinton, R. L. (1989). Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review. University Press of Kansas. Gibbons, J. (2002). Chief Justice John Marshall and Federalism. St. John's J. Legal Comment, 16, 351. Hobson, F. C. (1996). The Great Chief Justice: John Marshall and the Rule of Law. University Press of Kansas. Johnson, H. A. (1997). The Chief Justiceship of John Marshall, 1801-1835. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press. Johnson, H. A. (1998). Chief Justice John Marshall (1801-1835). Journal of Supreme Court History, 23, 3-20. Jones, M. (1956). Chief Justice John Marshall: A Reappraisal. The American Historical Review, 62(1), 147-148. Kent, C., & Capehart, R. (2003). Chief justice John Marshall and state competiton for economic development. Journal of State Taxation, 22(1), 72. Nelson, W. E. (2000). Marbury v. Madison. University Press of Kansas. Olken, S. (1997-1998). Chief Justice John Marshall in Historical Perspective. J. Marshall L. Rev., 31, 137. Robarge, D. (2000). A Chief Justice's Progress: John Marshall from Revolutionary Virginia to the Supreme Court. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Shevory, T. C. (1989). John Marshall's Achievement: Law, Politics, and Constitutional Interpretations. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.