Marbury v.

Madison (1803)

Petitioner: William Marbury

v.

Respondent: James Madison, Secretary of State

OPINION 4-0
 Facts

Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the presidential election of 1800

Before Jefferson took office, Adams and Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which created new
district courts, expanded the number of circuit courts, added more judges to each circuit, and reduced
the number of Supreme Court Justices from six to five.

John Adams also just two days before his term as president ended appointed new circuit judges and new
justices of the peace, a group known as the "Midnight Judges."

But outgoing Secretary of State John Marshall serving under Adams was unable to deliver all of the new
judges' commissions before Adams's departure.

Then Jefferson’s inauguration happened and he took the office.

Upon gaining knowledge of the undelivered commissions, he believed they were void and instructed his
Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver them.

One of the undelivered commissions belonged to William Marbury who repeatedly asked Madison to
deliver his commission to him.

After Madison had repeatedly refused to deliver his commission, Marbury filed a lawsuit in the Supreme
Court asking the Court to issue a writ of mandamus forcing Madison to deliver his commission.

Issues

The Supreme Court structured the Court's opinion around a series of three questions forming issues of
this case. The questions are listed as:

First, did Marbury have a right to his commission?

Second, if Marbury had a right to his commission, was there a legal remedy for him to obtain it?

Third, if there was such a remedy, could the Supreme Court legally issue it?

Judgment

The Court began by holding that Marbury had a legal right to his commission. Marshall reasoned that all
appropriate procedures were followed: the commission had been properly signed and sealed. The
delivery of the commission was merely a custom, not an essential element of the commission itself. The
Court said that because Marbury's commission was valid, Madison's withholding of the commission
violated Marbury’s Legal right.
Turning to the second question, the Court said that the law provided Marbury a remedy for violation of
his legal right. Marshall wrote that "it is a general and indisputable rule, derived from the ancient Roman
legal maxim ubi jus, ibi remedium ("where there is a legal right, there is a legal remedy").

The Court then confirmed that a writ of mandamus—a type of court order that commands government
officials to perform an act their official duties legally require them to perform—was the proper remedy
for Marbury's situation.

This raised the issue of whether the Court, a part of the judicial organ, had the power to command
Madison, who as secretary of state was part of the executive branch of the government.

The Court held that so long as the remedy involved performance of a mandatory duty by a specific
executive officer the courts could provide the legal remedy.

This brought the Court to the third question: did the Supreme Court have proper jurisdiction over the
case that would allow it to legally issue the writ of mandamus that Marbury wanted?

Congress had passed the Judiciary Act of 1789 to establish the American federal court system, because
Article III of the U.S. Constitution establishes only a "supreme Court" and leaves the rest of the federal
judicial power to be decided by Congress.

Marbury had argued that the language of Section 13 of the Judiciary Act gave the Supreme Court the
authority to issue writs of mandamus when hearing cases under original jurisdiction, not just
appellate jurisdiction.

The Court agreed with Marbury however it meant that the Judiciary Act conflicted with Article III of
the Constitution which says that the Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction over cases where a
U.S. state is a party to a lawsuit or where a lawsuit involves foreign dignitaries.

Neither of these categories covered Marbury's lawsuit.

So, according to the Constitution, the Court did not have original jurisdiction over a case like
Marbury's.

The Court ruled that Congress cannot increase the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction as it was set
down in the Constitution, and it therefore held that the relevant portion of Section 13 of the Judiciary
Act violated Article III of the Constitution.

After ruling that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act conflicted with the Constitution, the Court struck down
the section.

This was the U.S. Supreme Court's first ever declaration of the power of judicial review.

The Court ruled that American federal courts have the power to refuse to give any effect to
congressional legislation that does not align with the provisions of the Constitution—a move known as
"striking down" laws.
 SIGNIFICANCE

Establishment of Judicial Review: Perhaps the most significant aspect of the case is that it established
the principle of judicial review. Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion affirmed that the Supreme Court
had the authority to review and declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. This decision made the
judiciary a coequal branch of government with the power to interpret and apply the Constitution,
ultimately ensuring the separation of powers.

Checks and Balances: Marbury v. Madison strengthened the system of checks and balances among the
three branches of the U.S. government. It clarified the role of the judiciary in overseeing the actions of
the executive and legislative branches, preventing potential abuses of power.

Limitation on Legislative Power: The case established that Congress could not expand the jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court beyond what was defined in the Constitution. This decision underscored the
importance of adhering to constitutional limits on the authority of each branch of government.

Preservation of the Rule of Law: By declaring that actions taken by government officials must conform to
the Constitution, the case emphasized the importance of the rule of law. It sent a message that even
government officials were subject to legal limitations and that the Constitution was the supreme law of
the land.

Supremacy Clause (Article VI): The decision reaffirmed the Supremacy Clause, which states that the
Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Marbury v. Madison emphasized that all government
officials, including those in the executive and legislative branches, are bound by the Constitution and
must adhere to its provisions.