Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

How Chief Justices Roberts, Marshall responded to presidential bullies

A Republic, if we can keep it: Part XXV

John Marshall and John Roberts
Christine_Kohler/Getty Images; Supreme Court

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.”

This is the latest in “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

Chief Justices John Roberts and John Marshall share more in common than their ordinary forename and stressful day job. They both fiercely defended the reputation of America’s courts; they both presided over thenastiest politicaltrials of their times; and they both couldn’t quite contain their disdain for some of the presidential antics that occurred under their watch.


And yet, tragically, it was their fundamental differences that were most on display with the court’s astonishing decision in Trump v. United States (2024). Roberts ran from a fight while Marshall, in Marbury v. Madison (1803), took one head on.

First, let’s set the stage. Both Roberts and Marshall led courts that were asked to define the breadth of presidential “immunity.” Both Roberts and Marshall were expected to issue their critical rulings during periods of enormous political anguish and discord. Both Roberts and Marshall gave legal victory to presidents who were seen by opponents as demagogic. Both Roberts and Marshall relied on procedural limitations to justify those victories. Both Roberts and Marshall will doubtless be remembered for the way in which they handled these two momentous cases.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Of course, all of those resemblances disguise the single crucial factor that differentiates the two jurists: Only one — Marshall — considered the greater good of the nation.

From an early age, most Americans are taught that John Marshall’s ruling in Marbury v. Madison changed the legal landscape because it formulated the courts’ power of judicial review. Few, however, recognize that it was also the first Supreme Court case to examine the scope of presidential prerogative, the close cousin to presidential immunity, presidential discretion and presidential privilege.

The facts are simple. After losing the presidential election to Thomas Jefferson and relinquishing majority control of Congress to the Jefferson-led Democratic-Republicans, incumbent John Adams sought to pack the one remaining governmental branch — the judiciary — with Federalist allies. He and the lame duck Congress thus passed a series of last-minute resolutions that permitted Adams to nominate Federalists to a few dozen newly created judicial openings. William Marbury was one of those “midnight appointments.” The problem arose when Adams ran out of time trying to deliver the commissions. Once in office, Jefferson instructed his secretary of state (John Marshall, interestingly) to bury Marbury’s contract. Marbury, without a commission or a job, threw up his hands and cried foul.

Jefferson’s defense for withholding Marbury’s commission was that he — Jefferson — was insulated from legal redress by some ambiguous conception of presidential discretion. He was immune. He could never be criminally or civilly liable for what he described as “political” acts, those that the Constitution may not enumerate, but that are part of the broad scope of Article II. The principle of presidential discretion, Jefferson insisted, was spacious enough to include keeping Marbury’s appointment in the proverbial drawer.

Marshall disagreed, and in an excoriating opinion told Jefferson so. Sure, Marshall admitted, a president has certain discretionary authority, “but when the legislature proceeds to impose on [him] other duties; when he is directed peremptorily to perform certain acts; when the rights of individuals are dependent on the performance of those acts; he is so far the officer of the law; is amenable to the laws for his conduct; and cannot at his discretion sport away the vested rights of others” (emphasis added). Sorry, Mr. Jefferson, but no. Your argument about presidential discretion is unconvincing. “The United States is a government of laws,” the great chief justice admonished, “not of men.”

Marshall scolded Jefferson for abridging Marbury’s rights. He humiliated the president for declaring that he was above the law. He denounced the Virginian for putting personal motivations above national interests. He essentially called Jefferson a bully. And then he allowed Jefferson to win. Indeed, Marshall’s brilliant ruling stuck precisely because the president emerged victorious. Jefferson could keep the commissions, but the judiciary would hold on to the power of judicial review. A profitable exchange for the courts, to be sure.

In contrast, the current chief justice cowered at the feet of America’s biggest bully. The conservative majority in Trump v. United States, led by Roberts, seemingly rejected all the lessons handed down by Marshall. They granted presidents immunity for all “official” executive actions, and in the process sanctioned potential violations of the law. They provided a shield for presidents to “sport away the vested rights of others.” As long as the president acts in their official capacity, the ruling concludes, rights, privileges and, yes, metaphorical commissions can be withheld. What is most heartbreaking about the outcome of Trump v. United States is that the court received nothing in exchange, except perhaps a further tarnished legacy.

Chief Justice Roberts’ haughty dismissal of Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s opinion says it all. “Fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President ‘feels empowered to violate federal criminal law,” he called the very real apprehension expressed by the three dissenting justices. Fear mongering. What all Americans should fear is a Supreme Court that repeatedly, and cavalierly, relinquishes power to an imperial president.

Read More

​The U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution.
Getty Images, Bill Oxford

Democracy on the Edge: Take Action Now To Maintain the Constitution

Democracy is in danger. Voter suppression efforts are once again on the rise, most recently embodied in the reintroduction of the “SAVE Act.” Initially passed by the House in 2024 and revived again in April 2025, the bill proposes new identification standards for voting.

It calls to eliminate the use of driver’s licenses and state IDs and require birth certificates instead. While billed as an election integrity measure, this legislation is a thinly veiled attempt to disenfranchise millions of eligible voters, particularly the elderly, minorities, and low-income Americans who may lack access to original documentation.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands raised in the air, holding each other.​

Hands raised in the air, holding each other.

Getty Images, PeopleImages

Why Law Day 2025 Matters More Than Ever

At a time when faith in our democratic institutions is under assault and polarization runs deep, Law Day 2025 arrives with a powerful message: Out of many, one.

Observed annually on May 1st, Law Day is a reminder that the rule of law—not political whims, not brute force—is what protects liberty, ensures justice, and binds us together as one people. Established by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1958, Law Day invites Americans to reflect on the vital role of law in safeguarding freedom and fostering unity. Across the country, bar associations, courts, schools, and civic groups host events designed to renew public understanding of legal principles and their enduring importance.

Keep ReadingShow less
Fighting the Current Immigration Nightmare

Mother and child at the airport.

Getty Images//Keiferpix

Fighting the Current Immigration Nightmare

I had a nightmare that my mom was being deported. I dreamed of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents coming to our home and taking her away. The current climate has unlocked a childhood fear. My mom did not become a citizen until 1997, and in my early years, I was afraid that I would go to school and never see her again. I was afraid that I would be left behind.

To see immigration through the eyes of the child is to see separation from your parents, your sense of safety and normalcy. My mother had fled from Nicaragua to the United States during the 1980s during civil unrest in Central America, leaving behind my siblings until they could be reunited many years later. Once reunited, there were years to make up for missed birthdays and missed milestones, and at that point, a blended family with new siblings.

Keep ReadingShow less
Silver sign of Department of Justice on a classical concrete wall with plants as foreground.

Silver sign of Department of Justice on a classical concrete wall with plants as foreground.

Getty Images, Dragon Claws

Project 2025: Reshaping American Justice Under Trump

Last spring and summer, The Fulcrum published a 30-part series on Project 2025. Now that Donald Trump’s second term The Fulcrum has started Part 2 of the series has commenced.

Since President Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has undergone a rapid and radical transformation—one that closely mirrors the recommendations laid out in the controversial Project 2025 blueprint.

Keep ReadingShow less