AP U.S. GOVERNMENT & POLITICS · UNIT 1 · 2026–2027
Who Checks the Court?
Work in pairs or trios. Rotate reader, evidence finder, and challenger; in a pair, share the third role. Each student writes responses in a notebook. Write before opening a hint or model explanation.
1. Read Hamilton · 3 minutes
“It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”
Federalist No. 78 · Primary source
Vocabulary: Force refers to enforcement power; will refers here to making policy through legislative choice; efficacy means effectiveness. Hamilton argued for independent judgment, not a judiciary with no influence.
Constitutional evidence: Article III provides tenure during “good Behaviour” and protects judges against a reduction in compensation while in office. Article II gives the president the nomination role and the Senate the advice-and-consent role for Supreme Court appointments. Read the provisions.
2. Independence and accountability · 4 minutes · 4 points
- Explain how one Article III protection can help a judge rule against a powerful elected official. 2 points
- Identify one check involving another branch and explain how it limits judicial power without making judges ordinary elected lawmakers. 2 points
Hint
Separate protection against routine political retaliation from complete freedom from constitutional limits. Consider appointments or impeachment.
Check your reasoning
Good-behavior tenure reduces the need to please voters or seek reappointment; salary protection limits financial retaliation. The president nominates and the Senate confirms Supreme Court justices. The House can impeach a federal judge, and the Senate can convict and remove the judge with a two-thirds vote of members present. Removal is not an ordinary appeal from an unpopular decision. For each answer, award one point for the mechanism and one for the explanation.
3. Marbury: winning the argument, losing the remedy · 5 minutes · 6 points
Case facts, 1803: William Marbury sought delivery of his commission as a justice of the peace. He asked the Supreme Court to order Secretary of State James Madison to deliver it. The Court concluded that Marbury had a right to the commission, but it could not issue the requested order in that original proceeding. The statutory provision, as the Court interpreted it, attempted to enlarge the Court's original jurisdiction beyond Article III.
The Court treated the Constitution as controlling over the conflicting statute, establishing the landmark precedent for judicial review of congressional legislation. Read the Court's opinion.
- Distinguish Marbury's claimed right from the Court's authority to supply the requested remedy. 2 points
- Explain how the decision both limited the Court in this case and strengthened its institutional role. 2 points
- Explain the connection to Hamilton's defense of constitutional interpretation by an independent judiciary. 2 points
Hint
Ask two separate questions: Was Marbury entitled to the commission? Could this Court issue this order through its original jurisdiction?
Check your reasoning
The Court recognized the right but lacked constitutional original jurisdiction to grant this remedy. It refused to use an invalid statutory expansion of its own authority, while asserting the authority to decline enforcement of a statute inconsistent with the Constitution. That reasoning fits Hamilton's argument that judges should treat the Constitution as fundamental law. Each response earns one point for an accurate distinction and one for explaining its significance.
4. Exit · 3 minutes · 2 points
Explain why judicial review is a check on Congress while judicial independence does not mean unlimited judicial power. Use one example of each. One point per explained example.