Which statement best describes the impact of John Marshall's tenure as chief justice?

Which statement best describes the impact of John Marshall's tenure as chief justice?

• A. It weakened the power of the federal government
• B. It ended the practice of judicial review
• C. It established that states, not the federal government, held ultimate legal authority
• D. It established the principle of judicial review and reinforced federal supremacy

Answer: (D)

The main idea here is how Marshall’s time as chief justice shifted power toward the national government and toward the courts themselves. The pivotal move was establishing judicial review—the idea that the Supreme Court can strike down laws or executive actions that violate the Constitution. This gives the judiciary a powerful check on both Congress and the president, shaping how laws are interpreted and applied. Alongside judicial review, Marshall’s Court reinforced federal supremacy over the states. In key decisions, the Court said that federal laws and the Constitution trump state laws when they conflict, and it recognized the implied powers of Congress to carry out those federal goals. This was shown in cases that upheld federal authority over state action and demonstrated that national power could extend beyond what might be written explicitly in the Constitution. Together, these outcomes explain why the most accurate statement notes the establishment of judicial review and the strengthening of federal supremacy. Statements suggesting that the federal government weakened, that judicial review was ended, or that states hold ultimate legal authority don’t fit Marshall’s legacy, which consistently expanded federal influence and empowered the courts to interpret constitutional limits.

The main idea here is how Marshall’s time as chief justice shifted power toward the national government and toward the courts themselves. The pivotal move was establishing judicial review—the idea that the Supreme Court can strike down laws or executive actions that violate the Constitution. This gives the judiciary a powerful check on both Congress and the president, shaping how laws are interpreted and applied.

Alongside judicial review, Marshall’s Court reinforced federal supremacy over the states. In key decisions, the Court said that federal laws and the Constitution trump state laws when they conflict, and it recognized the implied powers of Congress to carry out those federal goals. This was shown in cases that upheld federal authority over state action and demonstrated that national power could extend beyond what might be written explicitly in the Constitution.

Together, these outcomes explain why the most accurate statement notes the establishment of judicial review and the strengthening of federal supremacy. Statements suggesting that the federal government weakened, that judicial review was ended, or that states hold ultimate legal authority don’t fit Marshall’s legacy, which consistently expanded federal influence and empowered the courts to interpret constitutional limits.