Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Submit a brief of the above case in the text box below. Your case brief should observe the case brief format found linked on the Constitutional Law page of this web site.
Please submit your Case Brief as an attachment to an email sent to:
grutledge@rsu.edu
Greg Brown
Date 02-01-2009
Brief: Marbury vs. Madison
Before President John Adams left office in 1801 he filled the newly created forty-two justice of the peace positions with members of his own Federalist Party. One of the appointees was William Marbury. Marbury’s commission had been confirmed by the Senate, signed by Adams and sealed by Chief Justice John Marshall, who was also serving as Adam’s Secretary of State. Marbury did not receive his commission before Adams was replaced by newly elected President Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson’s Secretary of State James Madison refused to delivery the commission to Marbury. Marbury asked the Supreme Court to force Madison to provide his commission arguing Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the court jurisdiction to decide the case. Despite Chief Justice Marshall’s involvement in the Adams administration he not only participated in the ruling of this case but offered the courts decision.
The Supreme Court can hear cases three ways. First by filing directly with the court, second file the case in a lower federal court and then through appeals process until you reach the Supreme Court. Lastly, file the case in state court and then appeal all the way through the states court and then appeal the case on a federal issue. Marbury believed the Judiciary Act gave the Supreme Court the authority to hear his case based on a writ of mandamus. The court needed to decide if they agreed they had the right of original jurisdiction which was granted to the courts in the Judiciary Act.
In a 4-0 decision with Chief Justice Marshall writing the opinion for the court, the court denied Marbury’s request. The court ruled that Marbury had a right to be recognized as a commissioner but the court did not have the right to enforce his selection. Marshall and the court found Section 13 of Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. The section granted the court the right of original jurisdiction but Marshall and the other justices disagreed saying it was unconstitutional. Therefore the court had no legal authority to issue the writ. However, Marshall and the court did affirm the courts right of judicial review, meaning the court could rule on the legality of laws passed by government. If in the opinion of the court the law passed violated the constitution, it could be ruled unconstitutional.
President Jefferson disagreed with the ruling because he felt it would give the Supreme Court too much authority over the ability of the Congress to pass laws. Congress duly elected by the people could be overruled in legal matters by judges who are seated for life. Some legal scholars believed the court had the right to issue the writ because the court did have the right of original jurisdiction in cases involving public ministers. They contend Madison fit that definition. Some have argued that the court should not have expanded on the courts right of review. Its ruling should have only dealt with the Marbury issue. After deciding it had no authority to force the commission of Marbury the court should not have expanded its ruling on judicial review. There was also the argument that Marshall should have excused his self from ruling on the issue based on the fact that he was President Adams Secretary of State. Despite these dissenting opinions the legal community now recognizes the Supreme Courts right of judicial review,
Tammy McCollum
February 3, 2009
Brief: Marbury v. Madison
Beginning on March 2, 1801, William Marbury was appointed by President John Adams to one of forty-two justice-of-the-peace posts mandated for the District of Columbia. This appointment, along with others, were done at the end of Adams’ presidential term and not actually finalized before Adams left office. Therefore, when the new administration took office, they refused to honor these commissions. Marbury then brought suit in the Supreme Court to compel delivery of his commission, relying on Sections 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which, he claimed, gave the supreme Court original jurisdiction in such a case.
The questions before the Court are as follows:
Has Marbury the right to the commission he demands?
If so, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?
If they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus (order from a high court to a lower court) issuing from the Supreme Court?
The Court held that, by signing the commission of Mr. Marbury, the President of the United Stantes appointed him a justice of peace, for the county of Washington in the district of Columbia; and that the seal of the U.S., affixed thereto by the Secretary of State, is conclusive testimony of the verity of the signature and completion of the appointment. So, by having this legal title to the office, he has a right to the commission. A refusal to deliver that commission is a plain violation of his right and therefore the laws of the country affords him a remedy.
The only question that remains in this case is whether or not the Supreme Court has the power to review it. The Constitution vests the whole judicial power of the U.S. in one supreme court, and such inferior courts as Congress shall ordain and establish. This power is expressly extended to all cases arising under the laws of the U.S. and may be exercised over the present case; because the right claimed is given by a law of the U.S. In the distribution of this power it is declared that “the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.”
The justices held that the Constitution was “the fundamental and paramount law of the nation” and that “an act of the legislature repugnant ot the constitution is void.” In other words, when the Constitution conflicts with an act of the legislature, that act is invalid. This case establishes the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review.
Kellia Jones
Facts of the Case: William Marbury had been commissioned justice of the peace in the District of Columbia by President John Adams in the “midnight appointments” at the very end of his administration. When the new administration did not deliver the commission, Marbury sued James Madison, Jefferson's Secretary of State. Marbury vs. Madison formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison was the first time the Supreme Court declared something "unconstitutional," and established the concept of judicial review in the U.S. (the idea that courts may oversee and nullify the actions of another branch of government). The landmark decision helped define the "checks and balances" of the American form of government. The decision established the doctrine of judicial review, which recognizes the authority of courts to declare statutes unconstitutional.
The core Constitutional issues:
The Ruling of the Court: The Court rendered a unanimous (4-0) decision, that Marbury had the right to his commission but the court did not have the power to force Madison to deliver the commission. Chief Justice John Marshall held that, although Marbury was entitled to the commission, the statute that was the basis of the particular remedy sought was unconstitutional because it gave the Supreme Court authority that was implicitly denied it by Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
The majority opinion: The justices held, through Marshall's forceful argument, that on the last issue the Constitution was "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation" and that "an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void." In other words, when the Constitution (the nation's highest law) conflicts with an act of the legislature, that act is invalid. This case establishes the Supreme Court's power of judicial review. It is definitely the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, explain and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each. So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.
