Thomas Jefferson had been inaugurated as president of the United States, and his victory limited John Adams and the Federalists to one term only. The two former friends and colleagues were now not speaking, and the conflict between the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans escalated.

One of Adams’s last gifts to the new president was a series of “midnight appointments” of Federalist judges. As you may recall, Adams forgot to have the appointments delivered before Jefferson’s inauguration, and James Madison, the new secretary of state, refused to deliver the letters. However, Adams had previously been quite effective in packing the courts with Federalist-leaning judges, and Jefferson had a fight on his hands. (Does any of this sound familiar?)

Article III of the United States Constitution, Section 1 reads: “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.” If federal judges are appointed for life and the only criteria for removal from office is a violation of “good behavior,” what constitutes “bad” behavior? Equally important, who determines behavior?

As the president plotted his course of action, he took the steps he had available to him. He replaced most of the marshals and court officers with Republicans. A new phase of patronage had been instituted, and Jefferson, as would future presidents, justified the action by reminding others that the implementation of policy required staff members who are committed to those policies and the philosophy upon which they were based. In other words, the president had the right to replace many of the employees of the federal government with those loyal to his ideas and plans for the nation.

By late 1801, the Republicans controlled Congress and moved to repeal the Judiciary Act of 1801. The lingering question of the “midnight judges” was now null and void, but the Federalist-controlled Supreme Court was an issue for Jefferson, and no one person threatened his ideas of smaller government, less taxes, more local control, and an agrarian-supported economy more than the new chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Marshall. While both were Virginians and had known each other for years, their philosophies of government had little in common. Marshall was a strong Federalist and believed that a government controlled from an empowered, centralized base was necessary for growth and prosperity.

The stage was set for a SHOWDOWN!

When the House of Representatives issued orders of impeachment for Supreme Court Justice John Pickering, an outspoken Federalist who was known to be an alcoholic and “insane,” the battle lines were drawn. Did Pickering’s behavior meet the constitutional requirement of “high crimes and misdemeanors” for removal from office? The Senate voted for removal, along party lines, and Pickering was out. The next target was Justice Samuel Chase, who was vocally partisan and considered a rabid anti-Jeffersonian. Again, the articles of impeachment were penned and signed by the House of Representatives, but the moderate Republicans in the Senate balked at Chase’s removal. If they could remove a justice so easily along party vote, might the same procedures remove Jefferson’s appointments if a Federalist became president?

Jefferson and Marshall would continue to tangle over issues related to the implementation of policy and congressional legislation. In perhaps the most famous Supreme Court ruling in U.S. history, the Court issued Marbury v. Madison, establishing the precedent that the Supreme Court could declare an act of Congress to be “unconstitutional” if it violates a constitutional provision. Marbury v. Madison increased the power of the judicial branch, as it implemented the practice of judicial review, allowing the Court to “review” congressional and executive actions on the grounds of constitutionality.

Jefferson would admit to advisors that, while he disagreed with Marshall, he admired the man’s keen intelligence and scholarly writing skills. The fight had cooled as Jefferson decided that the powers given to the courts would not necessarily limit the liberties that he most treasured. In fact, the courts might become an ally in the protection of those “Bill of Rights” freedoms that Jefferson feared might be weakened over time.

With a calm settling over Washington — well, until the next storm — Jefferson was free to focus on the foreign affairs that were about to dominate his presidency.