The answer to this question is subjective and can be debated. Some may argue that Jefferson's concerns were valid, while others may argue that the checks and balances put in place have been effective in preventing judicial tyranny.
One case that could be used to support Jefferson's concerns is the Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that African Americans, whether free or enslaved, could not be considered citizens of the United States and therefore could not sue in federal court. This decision was widely criticized and is considered by many to be one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in history. The decision was seen as an example of judicial overreach and an abuse of power.
Another case that could be used to support Jefferson's concerns is the Lochner v. New York case of 1905. In this case, the Supreme Court struck down a state law that regulated the working hours of bakers, arguing that it violated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. The decision was criticized for prioritizing the rights of business owners over the health and safety of workers.
On the other hand, some may argue that the Supreme Court has been effective in preventing tyranny through its use of judicial review. For example, in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the Supreme Court established the principle of judicial review, which allows the Court to strike down laws that are unconstitutional. This power has been used throughout history to protect individual rights and limit government overreach.
In conclusion, whether or not Jefferson's concerns about the potential for judicial tyranny were valid is a matter of interpretation. While there have been instances of judicial overreach throughout history, the checks and balances put in place have also been effective in preventing tyranny and protecting individual rights.