What do you think?
Rate this book
John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court
John Marshall (1755-1835) was arguably the most important judicial figure in American history. As the fourth chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, serving from 1801 to 1835, he helped move the court from the fringes of power to the epicenter of constitutional government. His great opinions in cases like Marbury v. Madison and McCulloch v. Maryland are still part of the working discourse of constitutional law in America. Drawing on a new and definitive edition of Marshall's papers, R. Kent Newmyer combines engaging narrative with new historiographical insights in a fresh interpretation of John Marshall's life in the law. Newmyer vividly unfolds Marshall's early Virginia years- his Americanization in Fauquier County before the Revolution, his decision to fight for independence as "a principled soldier," and his emergence as a constitutional nationalist in the 1780s. Marshall's experience as a Federalist politician and a leading Virginia lawyer during the 1790s, Newmyer argues, defined his ideas about judicial review and the role of the Supreme Court as a curb on party-based, states'-rights radicalism. Perhaps best known for consolidating the authority of the Supreme Court, Marshall is revealed here to have been equally skilled at crafting law that supported the emerging American market economy. He waged a lifelong struggle against champions of states'-rights constitutional theory, a struggle embodied in his personal and ideological rivalry with Thomas Jefferson. More than the summation of Marshall's legal and institutional accomplishments, Newmyer's impressive study captures the nuanced texture of the justice's reasoning, the complexity of his mature jurisprudence, and the affinities and tensions between his system of law and the transformative age in which he lived. It substantiates Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s view of Marshall as the most representative figure in American law.
568 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2001
6 people are currently reading
131 people want to read
About the author
R. Kent Newmyer
9 books2 followersR. Kent Newmyer has been a professor law and history at the UConn School of Law since 1997 where he has taught a wide range of graduate and undergraduate courses in American history, specializing in the political, constitutional and legal history of the early national period. Professor Newmyer received his Ph.D. in history from the University of Nebraska in 1959. From 1960 to 1997, he taught American history at UConn. He has received two awards for teaching and in 1988 was named a Distinguished Alumni Professor for excellence in teaching and scholarship, the highest faculty honor bestowed by the University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
June 18, 2025
Chief Justice Marshall's Judicial Nationalism
John Marshall, our nation's fourth Chief Justice, served from 1801 until 1835. He was appointed by President John Adams in one of the last and most significant acts of his administration.
Professor Kent Newmyer has written a comprehensive account of the great Chief Justice's career. The account is admirably researched and documented, drawing extensively on a new edition of Marshall's papers. It includes careful analyses of Marshall's leading opinions. Most importantly, Professor Newmyer gives a thoughtful discussion of Justice Marshall's place on the Court and on the importance of his vision of the United States for our history.
The book includes good discussions of Marshall's role in the Revolutionary War, as a successful lawyer in Virginia, and as a landowner and extensive land speculator. But most of the book consists of a discussion of Marshall's career on the Court, his opinions, and the manner in which he shaped the Court as an institution.
While Newmyer admires his subject greatly, I found this a very balanced account. He allows that Justice Marshall did not always meet his own stated goals of separating law from politics and notes how Marshall's activities as a land speculator seemed to play a critical role in several of his leading opinions.
The discussion begins with Marbury v Madison and its role in the doctrine of judicial review. It continues with a thorough discussion of Marshall's role in the treason trial of Aaron Burr, through a discussion of the great opinions construing the Commerce Clause and Contracts Clause of the Constitution, through the Cherokee Nation opinions that Marshall wrote near the end of his tenure which established the foundation of American Indian Law. (Professor Newmyer considers this decision Justice Marshall's proudest moment.)
The book considers Marshall's attitudes towards and opinions dealing with slavery. There is also a discussion of a series of polemical articles Justice Marshall exchanged with critics following the decision in McCollough v Maryland. Marshall's critics feared that he was giving too expansive a power to the National Government as opposed to the States. In fact, at the end of his career, Justice Marshall feared his life work had been overtaken by events with the rise of the democracy, a strong state rights movement, and the Presidency of Andrew Jackson.
Professor Newmyer sees Justice Marshall as a Burkean conservative in a new world. Marshall interpreted the Constitution broadly, yet flexibility to allow the development of individual, and national commerce and enterprise. Yet he was devoted to institutions and strongly inclined to accept the world as he found it rather than make it over in accordance with abstract principles (as he accused the supporters of the French Revolution of doing.) Newmyer writes:
"Marshall spoke as a Burkean conservative, or as much of one as American circumstances allowed. He was repelled by reductionist abstractions as well as abstract idealisms, even when it was couched, as was much of southern constitutionalism in terms of a mythical past. He worked from the 'given', accepted the world as it was, relished 'the disorder of experience" to borrow a phrase from Charles Rosen." (p.351)
Justice Marshall was not an original thinker, but he took the text of the Constitution, together with the Federalist, and molded it and the Court's interpretive role in a way that is with us today. He remains America's great Chief Justice. There is much for the interested reader to learn and to think through in Professor Newmyer's fine study of Justice Marshall.
Robin Friedman
John Marshall, our nation's fourth Chief Justice, served from 1801 until 1835. He was appointed by President John Adams in one of the last and most significant acts of his administration.
Professor Kent Newmyer has written a comprehensive account of the great Chief Justice's career. The account is admirably researched and documented, drawing extensively on a new edition of Marshall's papers. It includes careful analyses of Marshall's leading opinions. Most importantly, Professor Newmyer gives a thoughtful discussion of Justice Marshall's place on the Court and on the importance of his vision of the United States for our history.
The book includes good discussions of Marshall's role in the Revolutionary War, as a successful lawyer in Virginia, and as a landowner and extensive land speculator. But most of the book consists of a discussion of Marshall's career on the Court, his opinions, and the manner in which he shaped the Court as an institution.
While Newmyer admires his subject greatly, I found this a very balanced account. He allows that Justice Marshall did not always meet his own stated goals of separating law from politics and notes how Marshall's activities as a land speculator seemed to play a critical role in several of his leading opinions.
The discussion begins with Marbury v Madison and its role in the doctrine of judicial review. It continues with a thorough discussion of Marshall's role in the treason trial of Aaron Burr, through a discussion of the great opinions construing the Commerce Clause and Contracts Clause of the Constitution, through the Cherokee Nation opinions that Marshall wrote near the end of his tenure which established the foundation of American Indian Law. (Professor Newmyer considers this decision Justice Marshall's proudest moment.)
The book considers Marshall's attitudes towards and opinions dealing with slavery. There is also a discussion of a series of polemical articles Justice Marshall exchanged with critics following the decision in McCollough v Maryland. Marshall's critics feared that he was giving too expansive a power to the National Government as opposed to the States. In fact, at the end of his career, Justice Marshall feared his life work had been overtaken by events with the rise of the democracy, a strong state rights movement, and the Presidency of Andrew Jackson.
Professor Newmyer sees Justice Marshall as a Burkean conservative in a new world. Marshall interpreted the Constitution broadly, yet flexibility to allow the development of individual, and national commerce and enterprise. Yet he was devoted to institutions and strongly inclined to accept the world as he found it rather than make it over in accordance with abstract principles (as he accused the supporters of the French Revolution of doing.) Newmyer writes:
"Marshall spoke as a Burkean conservative, or as much of one as American circumstances allowed. He was repelled by reductionist abstractions as well as abstract idealisms, even when it was couched, as was much of southern constitutionalism in terms of a mythical past. He worked from the 'given', accepted the world as it was, relished 'the disorder of experience" to borrow a phrase from Charles Rosen." (p.351)
Justice Marshall was not an original thinker, but he took the text of the Constitution, together with the Federalist, and molded it and the Court's interpretive role in a way that is with us today. He remains America's great Chief Justice. There is much for the interested reader to learn and to think through in Professor Newmyer's fine study of Justice Marshall.
Robin Friedman
March 17, 2018
First and foremost, this should not be your first biography of John Marshall. Had I not just listened to an excellent Without Precedent, by Joel Richard Paul, I think I would have been lost quite a bit of the time. Newmyer assumes a passing knowledge of both Marshall and the law, and it wouldn’t hurt to know a handful of Supreme Court cases either.
That being said, Newmyer offers a fascinating analysis of Marshall’s decisions, situating them vis a vis intellectual, juridical and historical context, looking back to their sources and legal traditions and forward to their effects, ramifications and influences. He deftly teases apart Marshall’s legacy, maintaining its complexity while unwinding its strands into accessible, coherent themes and arguments.
Marshall’s tenure as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court stretched over six presidents: John Adams, who appointed him; Jefferson, who hated him; Madison and Monroe, who respected him while disagreeing with him; John Quincy Adams, who defended him; and Andrew Jackson, who opposed him as much as possible. Newmyer explores how Marshall’s jurisprudence adjusted to the changing politics of the age, while illuminating the consistent threads that connect all his decisions.
Well worth reading to fill out and expand your knowledge of John Marshall, antebellum American history, constitutional law and the Supreme Court.
That being said, Newmyer offers a fascinating analysis of Marshall’s decisions, situating them vis a vis intellectual, juridical and historical context, looking back to their sources and legal traditions and forward to their effects, ramifications and influences. He deftly teases apart Marshall’s legacy, maintaining its complexity while unwinding its strands into accessible, coherent themes and arguments.
Marshall’s tenure as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court stretched over six presidents: John Adams, who appointed him; Jefferson, who hated him; Madison and Monroe, who respected him while disagreeing with him; John Quincy Adams, who defended him; and Andrew Jackson, who opposed him as much as possible. Newmyer explores how Marshall’s jurisprudence adjusted to the changing politics of the age, while illuminating the consistent threads that connect all his decisions.
Well worth reading to fill out and expand your knowledge of John Marshall, antebellum American history, constitutional law and the Supreme Court.
November 23, 2019
Readable Biography of the Chief
John Marshall set the foundation for American jurisprudence and constitutional interpretation in the formative days of the Republic. Largely underappreciated in today's world, the student of American history, jurisprudence or politics needs to read and appreciate this book and understand the man that is John Marshall. A great and easy read that covers the man as well as his influence on the law.
John Marshall set the foundation for American jurisprudence and constitutional interpretation in the formative days of the Republic. Largely underappreciated in today's world, the student of American history, jurisprudence or politics needs to read and appreciate this book and understand the man that is John Marshall. A great and easy read that covers the man as well as his influence on the law.
November 17, 2018
This is an "academic" history, not a particularly readable one. It draws conclusions and makes summaries. It points to things that will occur in the future and shows how the the Chief Justice's past will influence his future.
There are many other books about John Marshall that are informative and readable. Pass on this one.
There are many other books about John Marshall that are informative and readable. Pass on this one.
January 10, 2020
This is a detailed, intellectual biography that does an excellent job at looking at Marshall's legal mind and it's influence. That said, it was a slog to get through such a dry text.
December 8, 2025
Damn near all encompassing. Very accessible and balanced. Lulled me into admiration but towards the end revealed the complexities and duality within Marshall — something all good biographies must do. The book succeeds in showing the step by step process in which Marshall forged law from nothing but the parchment of the Constitution. Regardless of his failures when it came to slavery (compared to his contemporaries honestly not that bad) he left the court on a high note with the Cherokee Indian cases. He is a man to be admired and remembered. He likely didn't anticipate some of the financial implications of his economic rulings though. Regardless, without him, it can be reasonably said, the Union may never have prevailed. The writing and book itself is monumental and though sometimes a little repetitive, it still does a damn good job.
February 19, 2017
I don't know if you've ever been asked to read a biography in a university class, where the autobiography-cum-biography focuses on a particular issue that a teacher or lecturer wants to highlight, This book is one of those books.
It genuinely isn't a bad book, but it feels like it presupposes a certain amount of knowledge of the law, which it doesn't really make any effort to explain. You learn to make educated guesses, as the book progresses, but I still rather suspect that I was missing things as the story was told.
The only other book of a Chief Justice that I've read is the Jim Newton biography of Earl Warren, which was an lot more readable, because it focuses on the entirety of Waren's life, which made it more accessible I think.
I was told a pretty dire joke one when someone asks for directions, and gets told that "Well if I were going there, I wouldn't start from here." The same could be said about this book. If you want a book about John Marshall, I wouldn't start from here.
It genuinely isn't a bad book, but it feels like it presupposes a certain amount of knowledge of the law, which it doesn't really make any effort to explain. You learn to make educated guesses, as the book progresses, but I still rather suspect that I was missing things as the story was told.
The only other book of a Chief Justice that I've read is the Jim Newton biography of Earl Warren, which was an lot more readable, because it focuses on the entirety of Waren's life, which made it more accessible I think.
I was told a pretty dire joke one when someone asks for directions, and gets told that "Well if I were going there, I wouldn't start from here." The same could be said about this book. If you want a book about John Marshall, I wouldn't start from here.
July 20, 2014
John Marshall is a remarkable and fascinating man. Unfortunately this book fails to do justice to his extraordinary life. While admittedly I learned a great deal about Marshall as a jurist, I feel that I learned considerably less about him as a person. I wanted a one volume biography akin to those done by Walter Isaacson or Joseph Ellis. Instead I got a relatively dry constitutional law history. But for the fact that I have a strong interest in this period of American history, coupled with the fact that I worked at the Supreme Court for ten years, I would have put this book down after the first chapter. Though I'm not sorry I finished it, I do regret that it was for the most part dull reading despite the fact that Marshall was himself as charismatic and pivotal a player in our early history as Hamilton or Franklin. He deserves a biography that showcases that.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews