This ‘Tournament of AP Gov SCOTUS Cases’ activity gives students an opportunity to evaluate the 14 required AP U.S. Government & Politics Supreme Court cases using a "bracket style" competition.

Next month’s presidential election is likely to have a dramatic impact on the United States Supreme Court. Look no further ...

In an early decision, Marbury v Madison (1803), the US Supreme Court asserted its authority to exercise judicial review of decisions by the legislative and executive branches. At the root of the ...

In our “model democracy,” the Supreme Court’s powers resemble totalitarianism. A select number of seminal Supreme Court ...

and elevating the power and prestige of the Court though landmark cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803). In addition to being the home of the Great Chief Justice, the John Marshall House was ...

Delivery of the commission is not necessary to effectuate the appointment. Marbury v. Madison (1803). Where the president has either constitutional or statutory authority to appoint (nominate ...

Among these supposedly basic propositions are the false assertions that the Court’s 1803 ruling in Marbury v. Madison “declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the ...

One example of the Federalists’ relative lack of principle would lead to Marshall’s most famous opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury v. Madison. In the lame duck session of the Sixth Congress ...

Attorney Michael J. Epstein points out that "Former President Trump's lawyers will also look as far back as 1803 to the Court's ruling in Marbury v. Madison, to argue that the Court's decision ...

and there is essentially unanimous agreement among legal scholars — particularly given its formalization in the 1803 landmark case Marbury v. Madison — that the judiciary has the ability to exercise ...

constitutional primacy over other sources of “supreme” federal law is a structural inference from the nature of the Constitution—as elaborated by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v ...

Lawmakers must assert their power to reject the justices’ interpretations of the Constitution and enact their own.