The landmark Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison, which was decided in 1803, is widely considered to be one of the most important cases in American history. Although the question at the heart of the case was specific to the time period—whether or not the new presidential administration was required to uphold the outgoing president’s appointment of William Marbury as the Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia—the case had an outsized impact on the functioning of the federal judiciary for years to come. Specifically, Marbury v. Madison established that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review—that is, the power to evaluate the constitutionality of other governmental actors, and to invalidate them if the Court decides they are unconstitutional. The case of Marbury v. Madison is extremely important in the American political system, and this importance is exemplified in the more recent case National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, in which judicial review was applied to a key issue in contemporary American politics: healthcare.

The Importance of Marbury v. Madison in the American Political System
There are several reasons why Marbury v. Madison is important in the American political system. Perhaps most significantly, by establishing that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, the case effectively completed the system of checks and balances that had previously been outlined in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers (“Marbury v. Madison (1803)”). This system was designed to ensure that no single branch of the federal government exercised too much power. The founders were concerned that leaders in executive, legislative, and judicial branches would abuse their power, so they suggested that each branch should have the opportunity to “check” the power of the others and make sure that they were not overstepping boundaries and impinging on the rights of the citizens and/or the other branches of government (“Marbury v. Madison (1803).”). Judicial review is a significant check on the actions of the legislative and executive branches, but it was not specifically articulated in the text of the US Constitution. Therefore, without the ruling in Marbury v. Madison to establish the precedent, the system of checks and balances that underpins the US political system would be incomplete.

In addition, the establishment of judicial review through Marbury v. Madison is important to the American political system because it represents a considerable expansion of the powers of the Supreme Court. In the Constitution, these powers are laid out in Article 3, which is relatively short and offers only a broad characterization of the Court’s mandate. Once judicial review had been established through Marbury v. Madison, the powers of the court were not only clarified, but they were also much more expansive. Over time, this has opened the Supreme Court to criticisms about activist judges. It has also affected the American political system by increasing the importance of judicial appointments, since a single Supreme Court justice can play a major role in upholding or striking down laws and invalidating or confirming executive actions.

Judicial Review in Contemporary American Politics: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
An example of the application of judicial review in contemporary American politics that highlights the importance of judicial review is National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, a case that was decided in 2012. The plaintiffs in this case (which included the National Business Federation, along with thirteen states and two individuals) argued that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 was unconstitutional on several grounds (“National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius”). They contended that by passing the law, Congress had overstepped its constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause; that the requirement for states to expand Medicaid went beyond the constitutional authority of Congress because it was too coercive; and that Congress was violating the state sovereignty provisions of the Constitution with the employer mandate (“National Federation”). Based on its review of the ACA, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law as a whole, but it struck down the provision of the law that required states to expand Medicaid (“National Federation”).

This example of judicial provides a strong illustration of the importance of judicial review in contemporary American politics because the decision had such a widespread impact on American citizens. By upholding the law, the Supreme Court confirmed the validity of the systemic reforms introduced by the ACA and ensured that millions of Americans would retain their access to health insurance under the law. At the same time, by striking down part of the law, the Supreme Court gave states the chance to limit Medicaid, which kept many Americans out of the program.

Additionally, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius highlights the importance of judicial review by demonstrating its indirect impacts on the other branches of the government and the broader political climate. Once the Supreme Court had upheld the constitutionality of the ACA, it was clear that the only way for the law to be invalidated was for Congress to repeal, amend, and/or replace it. Over the last six years since the Supreme Court decision, there have been ongoing efforts within Congress to do so. The repeal of the ACA also became a salient election issue for Republicans in many Congressional races and even the 2016 presidential election. Had the Supreme Court ruled the other way (or not reviewed the ACA at all), both the healthcare system and the political environment in the contemporary United States would be far different than they are today.