Marbury v. Madison, who established judicial review for the Supreme Court, changed the course of American history. This power to review legislation passed by Congress and possibly deem it unconstitutional has had a profound impact on American society. This power provides a check on legislative power, but it also lends itself to an important debate about when the Court can and should use this power. Should the Court use this power to increase the power of the national government, something many call judicial activism? Or should this power be used to reduce national legislative power and increase the freedoms afforded to individuals? During the time around the Great Depression, the court heard many economic cases involving these issues, and at first glance, they appeared to favor neither the government nor the individual. Looking more closely, however, one sees that cases siding with the individual have overturned legislation that interfered with the Commerce Clause or police power. When legislation was provided that invoked one of the above clauses, the Supreme Court tended to side with the government over the individual, as seen in Munn v. Illinois, National Relations Board v. Jones and Wickard v. Filburn. When the legislation provided had nothing to do with the Commerce Clause or police power, as in Adkins v. Children's Hospital, the court had no choice but to side with the individual. The case Munn v. Illinois, using the police power provisions derived from the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, was a pivotal case involving the government versus the individual regarding his or her economic rights. The 1877 ruling held that ... middle of paper ... that the Supreme Court, during and around the Great Depression, valued the Commerce Clause and the police power above the Contract Clause. The cases mentioned above clearly show this tendency to side with the government using these provisions. Is it possible that the President's threat of a “Court Rehabilitation Plan” forced the Supreme Court to act this way? In theory it is possible, but the public reaction to Roosevelt's plan all but ensured that such a plan would not come to fruition, and if it did, the justices would have nothing to fear and no reason to give in to his wishes. Works Cited Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923). 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. 1868. Reprinted in “The Civil War and Reconstruction Amendments” Comp. C.Mathie. 2013. 2.Munn v. Illinois (1877).National Labor Relations Board v. Jones (1937).Wickard v. Filburn (1942).