The election of 1800 caused great anxiety among Federalists. In the presidential election, Democratic Republican Thomas Jefferson defeated Federalist John Adams by only eight margins of victory in electoral votes (winning by one state), but Jefferson's victory marked the end of twelve years of Federalist dominance in the presidency ( Appleby 35 ). The Federalists were also losing power in Congress. The Federalists were also losing significant power in Congress. In the Senate, the Federalists maintained their narrow majority with only one seat, in contrast to the 6th Congress (1788=1801) where the Federalists had a 22-13 seat advantage over the Democratic Republicans (“United States Senate”). In the House of Representatives, the federalists blew up their majority by losing 22 seats in the elections (“Office”). These losses did not go well with the federalists. After sponsoring the Constitution and dominating the federal government in its first twelve years, many Federalists saw themselves as the government (Appleby 36). The election of 1800 was a tough adjustment for the Federalists. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The Federalists' only hope for power was in the judicial branch. In the period between the election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson, and the inauguration of the new members of Congress, the Federalist-dominated Congress passed the controversial Judiciary Act of 1801 ("Commemoration"). The law called for a comprehensive reorganization of the federal judicial system established by the Judiciary Act of 1789. The number of Supreme Court justices would be reduced from six to five, and Supreme Court justices would no longer be responsible for federal matters. circuits. Instead, sixteen judges will preside over the three newly formed (“History”). Each circuit court would have three judges (aside from the sixth which would have only two judges) and would represent a handful of states in the same region. For example, the first circuit court consisted of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. The Sixth Circuit consisted of Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio (United States. Congress.). The establishment of circuit courts eventually eliminated the time and travel that Supreme Court justices were required to make to “walk the circuit” or sit as judges on state-level courts. In the District of Columbia, the President was granted the power to appoint as many justices as justices of the peace he deemed necessary (“Commemoration”). In addition to the Judiciary Act of 1801, at the very end of Adam's term, Congress passed a different act to regulate the appointment of judges in the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia, like each section of the states, would have its own circuit court presided over by three judges (Peters 106). The president of the United States was authorized to appoint any number of justices of the peace for the District of Columbia as he deemed necessary. Adams appointed a staggering forty-two justices of the peace for the District of Columbia (Peters 107). Before leaving office, John Adams appointed all sixteen circuit court judges and forty-two justices of the peace for the District of Columbia. . The partisan, Federalist-dominated Senate approved all of these judges. Among these "Midnight Judges" was William Marbury ("Commemoration"). Before John Adams left office, William Marbury's appointment was confirmed, but his commission (the document authorizing him to assume office) had not yet been delivered to him. When Thomas Jefferson, as incensed by these midnight appointments as many Jeffersonian Republicans, took office, yesrefused to recognize Marbury and other Midnight Justice commissions. He ordered his Secretary of State James Madison to withhold all commissions. Then Marbury and a handful of judges who were denied their commissions asked the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus or, in this case, a court order forcing Madison to turn over the commissions to the judges (Appleby 62-63 ). The case would later be taken to the Supreme Court. Marbury v. Madison, as the case came to be called, is arguably the Supreme Court's most important case ever. In the case Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall addressed three issues in the court's opinion: 1. Was Marbury entitled to the writ of mandamus? 2. If Marbury were entitled to the writ, do the laws of the United States afford him a remedy? 3. If so, could the court issue the writ?. To answer the first question, Chief Justice Marshall explained that since Marbury's commission had been signed by then-President John Adams and sealed by then-Secretary of State John Marshall himself, Marbury had been properly appointed and was entitled to the writ of mandamus. To answer the second question, Marshall explained that U.S. law should provide Marbury with a remedy. According to Marshall, the first duty of the courts is to protect individuals, even against the president of the United States. In other words, the Court had a duty to protect Marbury and the other justices who were denied their commissions even when Thomas Jefferson, the president of the United States, decided not to grant them their commissions. Mentioning this point in the court's opinion, Chief Justice Marshall outlined the power of judicial review (United States. Supreme Court). However, Chief Justice Marshall's explanation of the third question effectively established the concept of judicial review, the power of the Supreme Court to strike down any law passed by Congress and the President that the Supreme Court interprets as unconstitutional. Writing “with emphasis on the jurisdiction and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” Marshall concluded that although Congress had the right to pass laws, the Supreme Court had the right to interpret whether laws are legal or illegal (“ Commemoration". ("Commemoration"). Marshall explained that Marbury was entitled to and deserved a writ of mandamus, but the Supreme Court could not grant Marbury the writ because section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 which granted the Court's right to issue mandamus was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court itself. Chief Justice Marshall explained that by passing Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress had given the Court too much power and that the Court had exceeded its power. limited original jurisdiction (the power to bring cases to the Supreme Court) as outlined in Article III, Section II of the United States Constitution Taking into account cases such as Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court was violating this limited power of original jurisdiction. (“Commemoration”; United States. Supreme Court.). Marshall believed that since the Constitution is the “superior law of the land,” “it is the Constitution, and not an ordinary act, which governs the case to which both apply,” or in other words, an ordinary act must conform to the Constitution . or it was unconstitutional (“Commemoration”). Thomas Jefferson was pleased that the court did not give William Marbury a writ of mandamus, but Jefferson was angry at Marshall's reasoning in the court's opinion. In a letter written to Judge William Johnson twenty years after the case,Jefferson called Marshall “irregular and very objectionable (Jefferson 1474).” Jefferson argued that “though signed and sealed…[Marbury's commission] is only in the making, is not an act, and can only be made so by its delivery. Whatever is in the executive office is certainly considered to be in the hands of the President and in this case [the commission] was in mine (Jefferson 1474).” However, despite Jefferson's opinions, judicial review was in progress. The Supreme Court did not strike down any law passed by Congress due to its constitutionality until 1857 in the case Dred Scott v. Sanford. In 1833, Dr. John Emerson purchased Dred Scott, a slave, and then moved, along with Scott, to a military base in the Wisconsin Territory where, due to the passage of the Missouri Compromise (prohibition of slavery north of the line latitude 30'36”), slavery had been outlawed. In 1840, Emerson, Scott, and his family moved to Louisiana and then to St. Louis (where slavery was legal). When Emerson died, Scott and his family continued to work for Emerson's wife, Irene. After six years, Scott tried to buy his freedom from Irene Emerson's new husband, Mr. Sanford, but he refused. Scott then took his case against Sanford to the Missouri state court where Scott argued that he and his family were already free, because they had lived in the free territory of Wisconsin. The Missouri state court ruled in Scott's favor and granted him freedom, but Sanford, dissatisfied and furious, dropped the case to the U.S. Supreme Court (McBride). In the court's opinion Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), the Supreme Court justices stated that the Supreme Court itself had no jurisdiction to hear Scott's case, because Scott was a slave and therefore not a citizen. According to Article III of the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court can only hear cases of “citizens” of the United States. The Supreme Court then also explained that just because Scott was a resident of the Wisconsin Territory, that did not make him free, because Congress had no authority to regulate slavery in the United States Territory (McBride). Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional (“Memorial”). Sanford was also considered protected by the Constitution, because according to the Supreme Court, under the Fifth Amendment, slaves were considered property (McBride). According to Cass R. Sunstein, a professor of law and political science at the University of Chicago, over the last quarter century, the Supreme Court has granted the executive branch maximum power of interpretation and the use of judicial review has been almost nonexistent. In particular, in the case Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984), the Supreme Court held that the executive branch was best positioned to issue rulings (Sunstein 2582). In the case, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sought to push for greater flexibility in the Clean Air Act and ultimately reduce environmental regulations that burdened the private sector. The EPA has redefined the word “stationary source” to include only an entire factory rather than each component that emits pollution within the factory. The Supreme Court ruled that because Congress had not prohibited the EPA from redefining the definition of “stationary source” when the Clean Air Act was passed and despite the fact that many members of Congress were furious during the case, the 'EPA technically changed the Clean Air Act Air Act, the EPA's change was "permissible" and that the CEO (the president) who was in charge of agencies like the EPA had the right, even against judges which the Supreme Court upheld,”).