Essay Sample on John Marshall: Most Influential United States Supreme Court Justice in History

Introduction

Chief Justice John Marshall was not only the longest-serving Supreme Court Chief Justice but also the most influential one in United States history. Marshal was born in 1755 on the Virginia frontier. He became a veteran of the American Revolution, practiced law, served in his state legislature before rising up to Congress and Secretary of State before being appointed the Chief Justice of the United States at age in1801 when he was at the age of 45 and served until 1835 when he died (Olken, 1997).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Marshal was instrumental in defining the Supreme Court that America is proud of today. He presided over the transformation of the Court from a "neglected part of the federal government into a powerful tribunal of constitutional interpretation" (Olken, 1997). Between 1801 and 1811, the Supreme Court was fragmented and uncertain (Olken, 1997). However, Marshall, being a charismatic and energetic leader, took the mantle as a "principle guardian of the constitution, ultimate legal arbiter of conflicts within the federal system, and a bulwark for individual rights" (Olken, 1997). Under his tenure, Marshal delineated government limits in a democratic republic, and as a result, strengthened the prestige of the federal judiciary while at the same time preserving the delicate balance between the federal authority and state (Olken, 1997). He successfully set a firm foundation for judicial independence, constitutional supremacy and dedication to the rule of law which has reigned as the main philosophy of the American justice systems to date.

Marshal carries the gratitude of defining the American nation through interpretation of the constitution. His views shaped the role of the Supreme Court and the development of the constitutional law (Olken, 1997). Marshall underpinned the Constitution as the fundamental law of the nation in which the citizens retained the ultimate political power in a federal system that apportioned authority between federal and the state government. He interpreted the Constitution as a document reflecting the will of the people and protecting individual rights, freedom, and liberty by limiting the exercise of power by the state and federal government (Olken, 1997). In his most cited opinions than never, Marbury v. Madison and McCulloch v. Maryland, Marshall established the supremacy of the of the Constitution by allowing the Supreme Court to invalidate state and federal laws that went contrary to the Constitution (Olken, 1997). Consequently, Marshall elevated the Supreme Court to a powerful position where it would judicial review to preserve the powers on the national level as well as suppressing the "centrifugal forces" of the states from destroying a young nation that America was during that time (Olken, 1997). Thus, he established the basis for strengthening of the federal government that united the states and made America a great nation.

Moreover, Marshall takes credit for being the first Chief Justice in American history to define the singular role of the Supreme Court in the Country's constitutional system. He defined the Court as a legal institution as opposed to political, consequently giving it independence and prompted its conservation during the political expediency. He singled out the Supreme Court as the only body to review the constitutionality of government actions denying the branches of federal government as well as the state courts the role of playing such a role thus reducing confusion in constitutional interpretation of government actions. He also made the Supreme Court the only Court whose decisions cannot be appealed (Olken, 1997). During the time of political turmoil in the 1820s and 30s, Marshal ensured the independence of the judicial system and staying away from political partisanship, something to reckon till today.

On matters regarding policy-making, Marshall empowered the federal government through its branch, Congress as policy maker that overruled states' policy-making function. In the landmark decision in McCulloch v. Maryland, Marshall upheld Congress authority to establish Bank of the United States while declaring the act of states to tax an instrument of the federal government unconstitutional (Johnson, 1997). Henceforth, the states would not override policies of the federal government.

Jurisdictional Levels of State Courts

Each of the states adopts their own judicial organizational structures. Although there is no standard on how states should organize their judicial, systems, each state uses some or all of the four jurisdictional levels: limited jurisdiction courts (LJCs), general jurisdiction courts (GJCs), intermediate appellate courts (IACs), and courts of last resort (COLRs) (Malega & Cohen, 2013).

Limited Jurisdiction Courts (LJCS)

These are lower or inferior courts. They have a limited jurisdiction or are a restraint to handle a restricted range of cases preferably those that are lesser criminal and civil matters including small claims, misdemeanors, parking, traffic, and civil infractions. In some states, LJCs can hear preliminary stages of felony cases (Malega & Cohen, 2013). Although the LJCs are inferior courts in the states, they handle so many cases than the higher courts (GJCs, IACs, and COLRs) because they handle immediate disputes at the family levels such as divorce, alimony, marriage issues, juvenile offenses, adoption and emancipation (Malega & Cohen, 2013).

General Jurisdiction Courts (GJCs)

GJCs are major courts that have primary jurisdiction on overall issues that have not been delegated to LJCs. They hear serious civil and criminal cases GJCs are delegated cases based on the severity of the allegation, punishment or dollar value of the case (Malega & Cohen, 2013). Therefore, unlike lower courts, GJCs courts have a higher jurisdiction that allows them to handle civil and criminal cases that are not heard by the LJCs.

Intermediate Appellate Courts (IACS)

IACs courts are third level state courts after the LJCs and GJCs. As such, they hear appeals on matters or cases decided in the LJCs and GJCs courts. IACs courts also have a jurisdiction to hear appeals from administrative agencies. IACs, depending on a given state, are the first, and sometimes the only, appeal courts empowered to exercise both discretionary and mandatory review of the cases they hear and decide (Malega & Cohen, 2013). Thus, IACs differ from both LJCs and GJCs with regard to their jurisdiction and powers (mandatory and discretionary). They can hear appeals from administrative agencies which neither LJCs nor GJCs can.

Courts of Last Resort (COLRs)

COLRs are the highest courts in the states and are often referred to as state supreme courts. Most states have a single court of last resort entitled to deliver a final authority over all appeals filed in state courts (Malega & Cohen, 2013). A state supreme court exclusively hears appeals on legal matters from inferior state courts. This means that, unlike the LJCs, GJCs, and IACs, COLRs holds no trials and does not make any finding of facts. COLRs remands cases before it to the trial courts so that a fresh trial can resume when it finds that the trial court had made an egregious error in its process of finding of facts (Hall, 2001). Also, being the highest court at the state level, COLRs exercise judicial review where the justices of these courts review and invalidate state laws (Hall, 2001). Such power of judicial review is unique to COLRs and designates the court a bearing on state policy-making process, a function that inferior courts like the LJCs and the GJCs do not have.

Judicial Self-restraint

Judicial self-restraint is a concept in which judges in lower courts (courts other than Supreme Court) must refrain from deciding constitutional legal issues (Posner, 2012). It is a substantive and procedural approach to the exercise of the judicial review in the Constitution. As a procedural doctrine, self-restraint advises judges to refrain from deciding on legal constitutional issues unless only the resolution of a concrete dispute between adverse parties is necessary. As a substantive approach, self-restraint recommends judges considering constitutional matters to grant substantial deference to elected branches' views and only invalidate their actions when they exhibit that they have violated constitutional limits (Luban, 1994).

There are various types of judicial self-restraint including legalism, modesty, and constitutional restraint. Legalism or sometimes referred to as "the law made me do it" implies that judges simply apply the law, they do not make it (Polsner, 2012). Legalism is a concept in the judicial system that justifies strict adherence to a narrowly defined judicial role. Legalists or the "law made me do it" restraints judges define their role in a way that permits them to apply the law with confidence or simply plain meaning (Polsner, 2012). For example, a judge presented with a case is restrained to decide on the matter based on the law that applies, but not to allow his or her own thoughts to interfere with judgment. In a rape case, for instance, a judge may be emotionally moved to thoroughly punish the offender. However, the judge is restrained to issue a judgment under the law applicable in such a case.

Modesty or institutional competence self-restraint is a concept whereby, to a great extent, judges defer to decisions made by other officials. For example, appellate judges defer to decisions by trial judges and administrative agencies while all judges defer to legislative and executive decisions. This form of restraint is informed by the notions of comparative institutional competence. For instance, an administrative agency such as an environmental body appointed by the Congress makes policies that are to the best knowledge of the professionals in that body fit for addressing environmental issues in the nation. If a decision by such a body is presented before a court, the judge restraints from annulling such decisions unless where the law is adversely violated because professional are believed to be more competent in policy matters than judges. Otherwise, the judge should respect the decision of an administrative body so that it does not appear to interfere with the policy-making process.

Constitutional restraint implies that judges are highly reluctant to declare executive or legislative action unconstitutional (Polsner, 2012). This deference is motivated by respect for the elected branches of the government. Constitutional restraint is linked with the judicial review function in which only the Supreme Court determines legislative decisions and actions and only invalidate them as unconstitutional whereby they are found to violate the Constitution beyond reasonable doubt (Polsner, 2012). For example, the Supreme Court should be reluctant to overturn a Congress policy, but if the judges find that such a policy extremely violates the provisions of the Constitution, then under such a circumstance have no remedy other than overturning the policy.

References

Hall, M. G. (2001). State supreme courts in American democracy: Probing the myths of judicial reform. American political Science review, 95(2), 315-330.

Johnson, H. A. (1997). The Chief Justiceship of John Marshall, 1801-1835. University of South Carolina Press.Luban, D. (1994). Justice Holmes and the Metaphysics of Judicial Restraint. Duke LJ, 44, 449.

Malega, R., & Cohen, T. H. (2013). State court organization, 2011. NCJ, 242850.Olken, S. R. (1997). Chief Justice John Marshall in Historical Perspective. J. Marshall L. Rev., 31, 137.

Posner, R. A. (2012). The rise and fall of judicial self-restraint. California Law Review, 519-556.