White Paper: Constitutional Supremacy vs. Judicial Supremacy in the United States

MKitch3|Sept 19, 2025


Executive Summary

The Constitution of the United States explicitly declares itself—and laws made in pursuance thereof—as the supreme law of the land (Article VI, Clause 2). Nowhere does it elevate the Supreme Court to that status. Yet over time, through practice and precedent, the Court has come to be treated as the final arbiter of constitutional meaning. This paper examines the historical roots of this transformation, the warnings issued by presidents and founders against judicial supremacy, the legal and political events that entrenched it, and the implications for American constitutional government today.

I. Constitutional Text: What the Founders Wrote

Article VI, Clause 2 (Supremacy Clause):

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Key features:

  • The Constitution itself is supreme.
  • Laws made pursuant to it are supreme.
  • Judges (state and federal) are bound by it.
  • Nowhere does it say “the Supreme Court’s interpretations are the supreme law.”

The judiciary is established in Article III, with jurisdiction defined, but there is no explicit claim of “judicial supremacy.” The very idea of the Court being the “final word” was created later, politically and culturally.

II. The Birth of Judicial Review

Marbury v. Madison (1803):

Chief Justice John Marshall declared it the duty of the judiciary “to say what the law is.” This was the first assertion of judicial review: the idea that courts could strike down laws inconsistent with the Constitution.

Marshall: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

The Constitution never states this directly. Judicial review was widely accepted as reasonable, but the claim that the Court’s interpretations are binding on everyone—forever—was a leap.

III. Early Resistance to Judicial Supremacy

Jefferson’s Warnings

Thomas Jefferson fiercely opposed judicial supremacy:

  • 1820 Letter to William Jarvis:
    You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
  • He argued that each branch had the equal right to interpret the Constitution:
    The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

Jefferson’s philosophy: every branch has the duty to uphold the Constitution, not defer to judges.

Jackson’s Defiance

President Andrew Jackson rejected judicial supremacy during the Worcester v. Georgia controversy (1832). While the quote “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it” is apocryphal, Jackson did ignore the Court’s decision, demonstrating his belief that the judiciary did not rule over the executive branch.

IV. Lincoln and the Civil War Context

Abraham Lincoln, confronting the Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) decision, argued that while Court decisions bind the parties to a case, they do not dictate national policy:

  • First Inaugural Address (1861):
    “The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court… the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

Lincoln respected Court rulings in limited scope but denied the notion that Dred Scott defined the Constitution forever.

V. The 20th Century Rise of Judicial Supremacy

Post–Civil War Developments

  • The Court began asserting broader constitutional interpretations in commerce and civil rights cases.
  • Precedent hardened around the idea that the Court’s rulings were binding on all levels of government.

Civil Rights Era

  • Brown v. Board of Education (1954) held racial segregation unconstitutional. Its moral force and federal enforcement cemented the Court as the “final word.”
  • President Eisenhower used troops to enforce Brown in Little Rock (1957), showing executive backing.

This set a new standard: Court rulings would be treated as binding constitutional commands, not mere interpretations.

VI. Modern Expansion of Judicial Supremacy

Key examples of the Court reshaping law and policy:

  • Roe v. Wade (1973): Created a national right to abortion.
  • Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): Legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
  • Citizens United v. FEC (2010): Redefined campaign finance as protected speech.
  • Dobbs v. Jackson (2022): Overturned Roe.

Each of these cases demonstrates the Court effectively setting national policy—without legislation. Critics argue this elevates nine unelected justices above Congress, the President, and the people.

VII. Departmentalism vs. Judicial Supremacy

  • Judicial Supremacy: The Court is the final interpreter; its rulings bind all.
  • Departmentalism (Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln): Each branch has equal right and duty to interpret the Constitution.

Departmentalism maintains balance but risks chaos if branches openly defy one another. Judicial supremacy provides stability but risks oligarchy.

VIII. Modern Critiques

  • Left-leaning critiques: Court is captured by conservative ideology and unresponsive to democratic will.
  • Right-leaning critiques: Court has usurped lawmaking powers and imposed liberal social policies.
  • Populist critique (both sides): Nine unelected justices should not decide issues that Congress avoids.

Public trust in the Court has fallen sharply in the 21st century, with polling showing historically low approval after Dobbs (2022).

IX. Rebalancing Options

  1. Constitutional Amendment: Clarify limits on judicial review.
  2. Jurisdiction Stripping: Congress can limit the Court’s jurisdiction under Article III.
  3. Term Limits for Justices: Reduce lifetime judicial entrenchment.
  4. Revive Departmentalism: Presidents and Congress openly interpret the Constitution independently.

X. Conclusion

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The idea that Supreme Court opinions hold that title is a political invention, not a constitutional command. From Jefferson’s denunciations to Lincoln’s resistance, history is filled with leaders who saw the danger of judicial supremacy.

Today, with polarization and declining trust in institutions, America faces the same question Jefferson posed two centuries ago: Do we live under a Constitution, or under the rulings of nine judges? The answer determines whether sovereignty lies with the people and their representatives, or with an unelected judicial elite.

Appendix: Key Quotes

  • Jefferson (1820): “The Constitution… is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary.”
  • Jackson (1832): “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges.”
  • Lincoln (1861): “The people will have ceased to be their own rulers… resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

Appendix: Timeline of Major Cases and Events Shaping Judicial Supremacy

Early Republic and Foundations

1787 – U.S. Constitution Ratified

  • Article VI establishes the Constitution (and laws made in pursuance thereof) as the supreme law of the land.
  • No explicit mention of judicial supremacy.

1791 – First Bank of the United States

  • Early dispute over implied powers. Hamilton (pro) vs. Jefferson (anti). Congress charters the Bank anyway.

1803 – Marbury v. Madison

  • Chief Justice John Marshall establishes judicial review.
  • Quote: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
  • This creates the precedent that courts may strike down unconstitutional laws.

Expansion of Federal Power

1819 – McCulloch v. Maryland

  • Court upholds Congress’s power to create the Second Bank.
  • Marshall: the Necessary and Proper Clause allows implied powers.
  • Significance: Strengthened national supremacy, widened scope of implied powers, and bolstered judicial authority.

1824 – Gibbons v. Ogden

  • Court broadly interprets the Commerce Clause, expanding federal power.

1832 – Worcester v. Georgia

  • Court rules that Georgia laws had no authority in Cherokee territory.
  • President Jackson refuses to enforce it, exposing limits of judicial authority when the executive resists.

Antebellum Crisis

1857 – Dred Scott v. Sandford

  • Court rules that African Americans cannot be citizens and Congress cannot ban slavery in the territories.
  • Seen as judicial overreach; inflames sectional tensions.
  • Lincoln later rejects the decision’s authority beyond the specific case.

1861 – Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address

  • Rejects judicial supremacy:
    “The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government… is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court… the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.”

Reconstruction and Early 20th Century

1869 – Texas v. White

  • Court rules secession unconstitutional, bolstering the authority of federal institutions after the Civil War.

1896 – Plessy v. Ferguson

  • Court upholds racial segregation under “separate but equal.”
  • Judicial supremacy entrenches systemic racism for decades.

1913 – Federal Reserve Act

  • Congress creates the Federal Reserve under implied constitutional powers. Judicial precedent (McCulloch) provides cover.

1935 – Gold Clause Cases (Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, Perry v. United States)

  • Court upholds Congress’s sweeping power to regulate monetary policy, even voiding private contracts.
  • Judicial blessing of federal financial authority.

Civil Rights and the High Tide of Judicial Supremacy

1954 – Brown v. Board of Education

  • Overturns Plessy, declaring school segregation unconstitutional.
  • Becomes a defining moment for judicial supremacy as national policy-setter.

1957 – Little Rock Crisis

  • President Eisenhower sends troops to enforce Brown.
  • Shows judicial decisions backed by executive force become national law in practice.

1973 – Roe v. Wade

  • Court creates nationwide abortion rights framework.
  • Seen by critics as judicial lawmaking beyond constitutional text.

Late 20th Century – Judicial Policymaking

2000 – Bush v. Gore

  • Court halts Florida recount, effectively deciding the presidential election.
  • Cemented public view of the Court as political actor.

2010 – Citizens United v. FEC

  • Court rules that corporate spending on elections is protected speech.
  • Expands First Amendment interpretations, reshaping campaign finance.

21st Century Polarization

2015 – Obergefell v. Hodges

  • Court legalizes same-sex marriage nationwide.
  • Hailed as a landmark for equality, criticized as judicial overreach bypassing legislatures.

2022 – Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

  • Court overturns Roe v. Wade.
  • Returns abortion regulation to states, sparking fierce debates over judicial power and legitimacy.

Modern Critiques and Challenges

  • Audit the Fed Movement (2000s–present): Efforts to rein in Federal Reserve independence highlight blurred lines between constitutional authority and judicial-accepted precedent.
  • Public Trust Decline (2020s): Polling shows trust in the Supreme Court at record lows, suggesting the doctrine of judicial supremacy is being questioned by both left and right.

Concluding Note on the Timeline

From Marbury to Dobbs, the Court has shaped policy more than any other branch by claiming the power to decide constitutional meaning. But moments like Jackson’s defiance, Lincoln’s resistance, and modern political backlash remind us: the Constitution is supreme law. The Court’s supremacy exists only because other branches and the people consent to it.



The Constitution vs. Judicial Supremacy: Who Really Holds the “Supreme Law of the Land”?

Introduction

When people say, “the Supreme Court is the law of the land,” they’re echoing a slogan, It’s not a constitutional fact. 

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution is clear: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Nowhere does it say, “the opinions of nine unelected justices are binding scripture.”

Yet in practice, the Court has become just that: the final word, the oracle, the referee in all constitutional disputes. This tension between constitutional supremacy and judicial supremacy has shaped American history from Jefferson to Lincoln to today.

1. The Supremacy Clause as Written

  • Article VI, Clause 2 (1787): Declares the Constitution itself, and laws made pursuant to it, as the highest law.
  • No mention of the judiciary. No elevation of judicial opinions above the other branches.
  • The founders designed a system of co-equal branches, each sworn to uphold the Constitution, not subordinate to one another.

2. Enter Judicial Review (Marbury v. Madison, 1803)

  • Chief Justice John Marshall invented judicial review by declaring a law void if it conflicted with the Constitution.
  • This was clever politics: the Court claimed a power not explicitly written down, but hard to deny in principle.
  • From that point, the Court began carving out a role as the ultimate interpreter, even though nothing in the Constitution gave them “final say.”

3. Jefferson’s Rejection of Judicial Supremacy

  • Jefferson feared judicial supremacy would turn into an “oligarchy.” He argued each branch—executive, legislative, and judicial—had the right to interpret the Constitution for itself.
  • In an 1820 letter, Jefferson warned: “The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”
  • Jefferson’s strict constructionist view clashed with Marshall’s expansive reading of implied powers, especially in cases like McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).

4. Jackson and Lincoln Against Judicial Absolutism

  • Andrew Jackson ignored the Court in Worcester v. Georgia (1832), allegedly saying, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” The quote is apocryphal, but the point stands: Jackson didn’t treat the Court’s ruling as the last word.
  • Abraham Lincoln, in his First Inaugural (1861), said Court rulings should bind the parties in a case but not “irrevocably fix” national policy. He cited Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), where the Court ruled African Americans could not be citizens. Lincoln rejected the decision’s broader authority, treating it as a judicial mistake, not the supreme law of the land.

5. The Rise of Judicial Supremacy in the 20th Century

  • By the mid-20th century, especially post–World War II, judicial supremacy hardened into convention.
  • Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was enforced as binding constitutional law, reshaping civil rights. Whatever one’s view of the outcome, it cemented the Court as final arbiter.
  • Presidents and Congresses generally deferred, even when grumbling. The Court’s authority expanded by habit, not constitutional amendment.

6. The Problem of Unelected Power

  • The Court today wields immense influence: abortion (Roe v. Wade, Dobbs v. Jackson), same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges), gun rights (Heller and Bruen), campaign finance (Citizens United), and countless other policy-defining rulings.
  • None of these outcomes came from legislation directly. They came from judicial interpretation, binding on the whole nation.
  • This makes nine unelected judges—appointed for life—the effective authors of constitutional meaning. Critics see this as aristocracy in robes.

7. Modern Pushback and the “Departmentalism” Argument

  • Departmentalism: The idea that each branch interprets the Constitution for itself. Rooted in Jefferson, carried by Lincoln.
  • Example: States challenging federal power under “nullification” theories (though historically messy).
  • Today, some scholars and politicians argue Congress and the President are not bound to treat Court rulings as universal precedent, only as binding in specific cases.

8. Current Context: Polarization and Court Legitimacy

  • Trust in the Court is near historic lows. Decisions like Dobbs (2022) polarized the nation.
  • On the right, people complain the Court has been too activist in social policy.
  • On the left, critics say the Court is captured by special interests and out of step with popular will.
  • Both sides are rediscovering Jefferson’s warning: an unchecked judiciary risks becoming the most dangerous branch.

9. What the Constitution Actually Demands

  • The Constitution is supreme. The Court is not the Constitution.
  • The Court’s opinions carry weight because the other branches allow them to. The judiciary has no army, no purse—only institutional habit and the compliance of others.
  • If Congress or the President took Jefferson’s or Lincoln’s view, they could resist judicial supremacy while still respecting specific rulings in their limited scope.

10. Conclusion

The belief that the Supreme Court is the “supreme law of the land” is a historical and political invention, not a constitutional fact. The Constitution is supreme. The Court is an interpreter, not a sovereign. For most of American history, leaders from Jefferson to Lincoln resisted the idea that nine judges should dictate constitutional meaning for 330 million citizens.

Today, with polarization eroding faith in institutions, the time may be ripe to revisit that debate. Do we want constitutional supremacy, or judicial supremacy? If the Constitution is indeed the supreme law of the land, then Congress, the President, and the people cannot outsource their duty to nine unelected officials.


The Real “Supreme Law of the Land”

1. The Real “Supreme Law of the Land”

  • Article VI, Clause 2 (the Supremacy Clause): “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”
  • Notice what’s missing? It doesn’t say “Supreme Court opinions are the supreme law.” It’s the Constitution itself, plus laws passed consistent with it.

2. Where the Court Comes In

  • Article III establishes the judiciary. It gives them jurisdiction, but nowhere does it say their interpretations are final and binding on everyone forever.
  • Marbury v. Madison (1803) is where Chief Justice John Marshall grabbed judicial review out of thin air. He basically said, “We, the Court, decide what the Constitution means, and our word is final.” That was political sleight-of-hand, not a line in the Constitution.

3. Jefferson’s Warning

Jefferson hated the idea of judicial supremacy. He wrote that allowing judges to be the final arbiters of the Constitution would make them “a despotic oligarchy.” He argued each branch had the right and duty to interpret the Constitution for itself.

Lincoln echoed that in his First Inaugural: the people don’t live under the Court, we live under the Constitution. He respected the Court’s rulings in specific cases, but rejected the idea that a single Court decision should “irrevocably fix” policy for the whole nation.

4. Political vs. Legal Reality

  • In theory: The Constitution is supreme. Court rulings are just opinions binding the parties in a specific case.
  • In practice: Judicial review and stare decisis (precedent) give Supreme Court rulings enormous gravitational pull. Presidents and Congresses, for the most part, go along because otherwise the system cracks.

5. The Gap Between “Is” and “Ought”

  • Is: The Court has made itself the referee. Through precedent, most of America treats its rulings as binding constitutional law.
  • Ought: If you’re strict about the text, the Court is not supreme law. Its opinions should be respected but not worshiped. Each branch has equal duty to uphold the Constitution as written, not just as interpreted.

So the fight I’m sniffing at is the same one Jefferson, Jackson, and Lincoln all raised: do we live under a Constitution, or under nine lawyers in robes?