Question: Which concerned judicial review, South Dakota v. Dole or Marbury v. Madison?
Context: Teo Soh Lung v. Minister for Home Affairs is the name of two cases of the Singapore courts, a High Court decision delivered in 1989 and the 1990 judgment in the appeal from that decision to the Court of Appeal.  The cases were concerned with the constitutionality of amendments made to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore and the Internal Security Act ("ISA") in 1989.  The latter statute authorizes detention without trial on security grounds.  These amendments had the effect of changing the law on judicial review of executive discretion under the ISA by re-establishing the subjective test enunciated in the 1971 High Court decision "Lee Mau Seng v. Minister for Home Affairs" which had been overruled in 1988 by "Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs", and limiting the right of judicial review to ensuring compliance with procedures specified in the ISA.  In other words, the amendments were intended to render the exercise of power by the President and the Minister for Home Affairs under the ISA to detain persons without trial not justiciable by the courts.  Both the High Court and Court of Appeal found that these amendments were constitutional because Parliament had done nothing more than enact the rule of law relating to the law applicable to judicial review.  Thus, the amendments validly operated to deprive the applicant Teo Soh Lung of the ability to apply to the courts for judicial review. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court considered the limitations the Constitution places on the authority of the United States Congress when it uses its authority to influence the individual states in areas of authority normally reserved to the states.  It upheld the constitutionality of a federal statute that withheld federal funds from states whose legal drinking age did not conform to federal policy. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) , is a landmark case by the United States Supreme Court which forms the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution.  The landmark decision helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government. In the United States, judicial review is the ability of a court to examine and decide if a statute, treaty or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution.  While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define a power of judicial review, the authority for judicial review in the United States has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution. Judicial review is a process under which executive and (in some countries) legislative actions are subject to review by the judiciary.  The power of courts to assess whether a law is in compliance with the constitution.  A court with judicial review power may invalidate laws and decisions that are incompatible with a higher authority; an executive decision may be invalidated for being unlawful or a statute may be invalidated for violating the terms of a written constitution.  Judicial review is one of the checks and balances in the separation of powers: the power of the judiciary to supervise the legislative and executive branches when the latter exceed their authority.  The doctrine varies between jurisdictions, so the procedure and scope of judicial review may differ between and within countries. Trevett v. Weeden (1786) was a Rhode Island Supreme Court decision finding state legislation regarding paper currency was violative of the state constitution.  The decision set precedent for "Marbury v. Madison" regarding judicial review. As early as 1936, the Philippine Supreme Court had unequivocally asserted its constitutional authority to engage in judicial review.  This power was affirmed in the Supreme Court decision in "Angara v. Electoral Commission", 63 Phil.  139 (1936).  Nonetheless, the Supreme Court would, in the next several decades, often decline to exercise judicial review by invoking the political question doctrine.  In 1987, the constitutional convention formed to draft a new charter decided to provide for a definition of "judicial power" as a means of inhibiting the Supreme Court from frequently resorting to the political question doctrine.  Hence, Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution states in part that:"Judicial power includes the duty of courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government."  See also: The term judicial review is not expressly used in Bangladeshi law, but Article 102 of the Constitution of Bangladesh allows writ petitions to be filed at the High Court Division for reviewing the actions of public authorities, or suspending proceedings in lower courts.  The article has caused significant judicial activism in Bangladesh.  In the 1970s, Article 102 was employed by the courts to set a precedent for invalidating detentions under the Special Powers Act.  The courts have struck down constitutional amendments and enforced democratic local government under Article 102.  The scope of such judicial review has expanded greatly since Justice Mustafa Kamal formally accepted public interest litigation for the first time in 1996, allowing associations and NGOs espousing the public's cause to file for judicial review. Judicial review in Hong Kong is conducted according to the Constitutional and Administrative Law List (Practice Direction 26.1).  It comprises two different aspects: firstly, judicial review of domestic legislation as to their compatibility with the Basic Law ("constitutional review"); secondly, judicial review of administrative decisions under administrative law ("administrative review"). John Williams (March 14, 1731 – October 10, 1799) was a signer of the United States' Articles of Confederation.  He was one of the founders of the University of North Carolina.  During the American Revolutionary War, Williams was a colonel in the North Carolina militia.  In 1777 and 1778, he was a member of the North Carolina House of Commons and served as Speaker of the House.  Williams was a member of the Continental Congress in 1778 and 1779.  He served as a superior court judge both during the colonial era and after the new state of North Carolina was established in 1776.  Sitting alongside other superior court judges as part of a Court of Conference (forerunner to the North Carolina Supreme Court), Williams heard the landmark case, "Bayard v. Singleton", which announced the principle of judicial review on the state level before "Marbury v. Madison" did so on the federal level.
Answer: Marbury v. Madison