Prepare for the Social Studies Praxis Test with our interactive quiz. Use flashcards and multiple choice questions with hints and explanations to gear up for success!

Each practice test/flash card set has 50 randomly selected questions from a bank of over 500. You'll get a new set of questions each time!

Practice this question and more.


The United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Marbury v. Madison was significant because it established the?

  1. right of the Supreme Court to original jurisdiction in federal cases

  2. power of the Supreme Court to invalidate an act of Congress

  3. number of United States Supreme Court justices

  4. principle that presidents have the authority to expand United States territory by purchasing land

The correct answer is: power of the Supreme Court to invalidate an act of Congress

The significance of the Marbury v. Madison decision lies in its establishment of the power of the Supreme Court to invalidate an act of Congress. This landmark case, decided in 1803, is foundational in American constitutional law as it affirmed the principle of judicial review. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions and to nullify those that are found to be in conflict with the Constitution. This case arose when William Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to compel Secretary of State James Madison to deliver his commission as a justice of the peace. Chief Justice John Marshall concluded that while Marbury had a right to his commission, the Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus in this case because the section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that granted the Court that power was itself unconstitutional. By declaring this part of the Act invalid, the Court established its role as a check on the other branches of government, elevating the judiciary's role in the balance of powers in federal governance. The other options do not correctly reflect the essence of the ruling in Marbury v. Madison; the case did not address issues of the number of justices or presidential authority over land acquisitions, nor