Text and History Narratives

The Keystone of the Arch: The Text and History of Article III and the Constitution’s Promise of Access to Courts

When the Constitution was framed, the promise of access to the federal courts was at the heart of a new system of government accountable to the people.

Summary

When the Constitution was framed, the promise of access to the federal courts was at the heart of a new system of government accountable to the people. As John Marshall— soon to become our Nation’s greatest Chief Justice—observed, “[t]o what quarter will you look for protection from an infringement on the Constitution, if you will not give the power to the judiciary? There is no other body that can afford such a protection.” The federal judiciary, with the Supreme Court at its head, would be the “keystone of the arch,” establishing a binding rule of law for the nation. In Article III, the Framers created the federal judiciary as a co-equal branch of government vested with the power of expounding and enforcing the laws in cases and controversies. Today, the Framers’ constitutional vision is in shambles. Over the last several decades, conservative Justices on the Supreme Court have emasculated this fundamental constitutional principle, filling the United States Reports with arcane and impenetrable doctrines that do violence to the rule-of-law values at the Constitution’s core. Armed with this history, progressives have a chance to restore basic constitutional first principles that give Americans their day in court to redress legal wrongs and prevent abuse of power by the government. The story laid out in this Narrative shows why this is what the Constitution’s text and history requires.

CAC released The Keystone of the Arch at an event hosted at Georgetown Law School’s Supreme Court Institute on November 3, 2016.

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
April 19, 2024

Will the Supreme Court Uphold the 14th Amendment and Block an Oregon Law Criminalizing Homelessness?

Nearly 38 million Americans live in poverty. In some areas and among some populations, entrenched economic...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
April 18, 2024

DEI critics were hoping that the Supreme Court’s Muldrow decision would undermine corporate diversity programs. It does no such thing

Fortune
The Supreme Court just delivered a big win for workers and workplace equality–but conservatives are...
Civil and Human Rights
April 17, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court Decision Today Is Important Win for Workers

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Muldrow v. City of...
By: Brianne J. Gorod
Civil and Human Rights
April 15, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court should accept broad agreement among civil rights plaintiff, police, and the federal government in malicious prosecution case

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Chiaverini v....
Civil and Human Rights
April 5, 2024

Supreme Court Divides Gavin Newsom and Progressives

Newsweek
An upcoming Supreme Court case has divided Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom and progressives. Nearly 90 amicus briefs...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson

In Grants Pass v. Johnson, the Supreme Court is considering whether city ordinances that punish the status of being homeless impose “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of the Eighth Amendment.