Question 74

Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the precedent for the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review.

This landmark case affirmed the authority of the Supreme Court to invalidate laws that are found to be in conflict with the Constitution, thereby establishing the principle of judicial review.

A) Marbury v. Madison (1803)

This case is significant because it marked the first time the Supreme Court declared an act of Congress unconstitutional, thereby solidifying the power of judicial review. Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in this case set the foundation for the judiciary's role in interpreting the law and ensuring that no law or government action can supersede the Constitution.

B) McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

While McCulloch v. Maryland is an important case that reinforced the federal government's implied powers and the supremacy of federal law over state law, it did not establish the precedent for judicial review. Instead, it further clarified the relationship between state and federal authority.

C) Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

Gibbons v. Ogden focused on the regulation of interstate commerce and affirmed federal authority in this area. Although it was a significant case in defining the scope of federal powers, it did not address or establish the concept of judicial review.

D) Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

Dred Scott v. Sandford dealt with the issue of slavery and citizenship but did not establish the power of judicial review. Instead, it is often cited for its controversial ruling and its impact on the legal status of enslaved people rather than for any precedential role concerning judicial review.

E) Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Plessy v. Ferguson is known for establishing the "separate but equal" doctrine regarding racial segregation. However, it did not address the issue of judicial review, and its focus was primarily on civil rights and the legality of segregation laws.

Conclusion

Marbury v. Madison (1803) is the definitive case that established the precedent for judicial review, allowing the Supreme Court to declare laws unconstitutional. Other options, while significant in their own rights, do not relate to the establishment of judicial review and therefore cannot be considered correct in this context.