Marbury v. Madison

1803, arguably the most significant case in supreme court history

the facts of the case

-first two political parties were federalists and democratic republicans and they fought a lot

-John Adams (federalist) lost the third presidential election to Thomas Jefferson (democratic republican) so Adams tried to come up with a plan to dilute the democratic republicans’ power. He made sure to appoint as many federalists as possible into Congress and the Supreme Court (because that’s the presidents job to appoint them) before he left office

-some were left undelivered so Jefferson ordered his secretary to not deliver the uncommissioned ones

-this made William Marbury who was one of the judges who had been appointed but not yet commissioned so he sued Madison and the supreme court with a writ of mandamus- a court order for an official to do what he’s legally required to do

constitutional principle at stake

-the jurisdiction clauses in Article III of the Constitution

-it states that the supreme court has original (the power to hear cases for the first time) and appellate jurisdiction (the power to hear appeals from lower federal courts)

-jurisdiction (the scope of power the court exercises over cases)

-the supreme court only has original jurisdiction over cases involving states or foreign ambassadors or consuls

arguments

-John Marshall the supreme court justice separated it into three questions

-Does Marbury have the legal right to his commission?

-If yes, is the court ordered writ of mandamus the proper legal means to get the commission?

-If yes, does the court have the authority to grant the writ of mandamus?

decision

does Marbury have the legal right to his commission? Yes! Congress established the new courts and the judgeships and the president did his constitutional duty to appoint judges to them and the fact that some of them were undelivered was just a technicality.

Is the court ordered writ of mandamus the proper legal means to get the commission? yes!

Does the court have the authority to grant the writ of mandamus? No! Article 3 does not state anything about the supreme court being able to issue writs of Mandamus

-Marbury thought they could because of the Judiciary Act of 1789 which in addition to establishing all the federal courts also said in article 13 that the supreme court had the authority to issue writs of mandamus in original jurisdiction cases

-his case was original jurisdiction so he thought they could issue the writ

-John Marshall declared that this directly violated Article 3 of the Constitution! Because this didn’t involve states or ambassadors!

-Article 13 of the jurisdiction act null and void!

why it matters

-by declaring that law unconstitutional, Marshall essentially invested the Supreme Court with the power of judicial review, making the judicial branch the final interpreter of the Constitution and tool on the mantle of striking down or upholding laws passed by congress based on their constitutionality