Introduction to Marbury V Madison Judicial Review
Marbury V Madison is conceivably the most important case in Supreme Court History. It was the first United States supreme court case in history to incorporate the rules of Judicial review- the power of federal courts to void acts of Congress in conflict with the constitution. Drafted by John Marshall, Chief Justice in 1803, the decision played a vital role in forming the supreme court, a separate branch of government to match with congress and executives.
(Image will be uploaded soon)
Marbury V Madison Case Brief Highlights
Marbury V Madison Case Brief:
William Marbury, an executive appointee of President John Adams, did not receive the paper appointing him his commission. His case against James Madison (American diplomat and Philosopher), and President Thomas Jefferson’s secretary of state, asked the supreme court to issue a Writ of Mandamus that would compel Madison to deliver the commission.
Marbury V Madison Case Issue:
Whether the supreme court retains the power to issue a Writ of Mandamus that would force Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury.
Marbury V Madison Case Outcome:
The court declared that retaining Marbury’s appointment was unlawful but that the law establishing the court’s authority to issue a writ of mandamus—the Judiciary Act of 1789—conflicted with the Constitution and the court, therefore, could not issue the writ.
Marbury V Madison Judicial Review Case Background
A week ago, Thomas Jefferson’s elected as a president in March 1801, 16 new circuit judgeships (in the Judiciary Act of 1801) and an unspecified number of new judgeships (in the Organic Act) were created by the lame-duck Federalist Congress. It was further moved by John Adams to fill with Federalists in an effort to preserve his party’s control of the judiciary and to defeat the legislative agenda of Jefferson and his Republican (Democratic-Republican) Party. As he was among the last of those appointments (the allegedly called “midnight appointments”), William Marbury, a Federalist Party leader from Maryland, did not receive his commission before Jefferson became president. Once in office, Jefferson directed his secretary of state, James Madison, to conceal the commission, and Marbury requested the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel Madison to act.
Marbury and his lawyer, former attorney general Charles Lee, debated that signing and sealing the commission completed the transaction and that delivery, in any event, constituted just a formality. But formality or not, Marbury could not enter into the duties of the office without the actual piece of the certificate. Despite Jefferson’s opposition, the court agreed to hear the case, Marbury v. Madison, in its February 1803 term.
Some scholars raised the question of whether Marshall should have eliminated himself from the case due to his prior service as Adams’s secretary of state (1800–01). Certainly, later judicial standards would have called for rejection, but at the time only financial connections to a case led judges to retire, as Marshall did in suits regarding Virginia lands in which he had an interest. The Republicans who are always prepared to criticize Marshall did not even raise the issue of the propriety of his sitting in the case.
The issue directly presented by Marbury v. Madison can only be described as minor. By the time the case was heard by the law, the intelligence of Jefferson’s desire to minimize the number of justices of the peace had been confirmed (and the Judiciary Act of 1801 had been repealed). The original duration of Marbury was almost half over; and most people, Federalists and Republicans alike, considered the case to be debatable. Despite the political difficulties involved, Marshall recognized that he had a perfect case with which to set forth a basic principle, judicial review, which would secure the Supreme Court’s main role in constitutional interpretation.
Marbury V Madison Case Decision
The chief justice observed the dilemma that the case presented to the court. If the law had issued the writ of mandamus, Jefferson had the complete authority to ignore it, as the court had no power to impose it. On the other hand, if the court refused to issue the writ, it would appear that the judicial branch of government had surrendered before the executive and that Marshall would not allow it. The solution chosen by him has suitably been named as a tour de force. All together, Marshall managed to establish the power of the court as the ultimate referee of the Constitution, to reprimand the Jefferson administration for its failure to obey the law and to prevent having the court’s authority challenged by the administration.
Marshall, adopting a style that would mark all his major opinions, minimized the case to a few basic issues. He asked the following three questions:
Did Marbury retain the right to the commission?
If he did, and his right had been violated, did the court provide him with a remedy?
If it did, would the effective solution be a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court issue?
Concerning the first question, Marshall ruled that Marbury had been properly appointed by following the procedures established by law and that he, therefore, retained a right to the writ. Secondly, as Marbury retained a legal right to his commission, the law must provide him with a remedy. The Chief Justice went on to say that it was the specific responsibility of the courts to protect the rights of individuals even against the president of the United States. At the time, Marshall's ill-conceived lecture to President Jefferson about the rule of law was much more controversial than his statement about judicial review (which doctrine was widely accepted). While answering the third question-- whether a writ of mandamus issued by the Supreme Court was the effective solution-- that Marshall addressed the question of judicial review.
The Chief Justice ruled that the Court could not issue the writ because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which granted it the right to do so, was forbidden in so much as it extended to cases of original jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction that implies the power to bring cases directly to the Supreme Court was the only jurisdictional matter dealt with by the Constitution itself. As per Article III, it can only be applied to the cases "affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls" and to cases "in which the state shall be a party." By enlarging the Court's original power to incorporate cases like Marbury's, Congress had exceeded its authority. And when an act of Congress conflicts with the Constitution, it is, Marshall said, the obligation of the Court to uplift the Constitution because, through Article VI, it is the "fundamental law of the land."
As a result of Marshall's decision Marbury denied his commission. This probably pleased President Jefferson. Jefferson was not pleased with the lecture given to him by the Chief Justice, however, nor with Marshall's affirmation of the Court's power to review acts of Congress. For practical political consideration, Marshall did not say that the Court was the only translator of the Constitution (though he hoped it would be) and he did not say how the decision would be imposed by the Court if Congress or the Executive opposed them. But, by his timely affirmation of judicial review, the Court began its ascent as an equal branch of government -- an equal in power to the Congress and the president. Throughout its long-standing experience, when the Court needed to affirm its constitutionality, it has specified Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison.
FAQs on Marbury V Madison
1. What was the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) about in simple terms?
In simple terms, Marbury v. Madison was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that arose from a political dispute. Outgoing President John Adams appointed William Marbury as a judge, but his commission was not delivered before Thomas Jefferson became president. When Jefferson's Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver the commission, Marbury sued. The case ultimately established the principle of judicial review.
2. What is the principle of 'judicial review' established by Marbury v. Madison?
The principle of judicial review is the power of the courts to determine whether acts of the other branches of government (the legislative and executive) are in accordance with the Constitution. If a court finds a law to be unconstitutional, it can declare that law void. This case was the first time the Supreme Court explicitly claimed this power for itself, making it a co-equal branch of government.
3. Explain the political background that led to the Marbury v. Madison case.
The case originated from the bitter political rivalry between the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party. In the final days of his presidency, Federalist John Adams made numerous judicial appointments, known as the “midnight judges,” to fill the courts with his political allies. When Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson took office, he was angered by this move and ordered his Secretary of State, James Madison, to withhold the undelivered commissions, which directly triggered the Marbury V Madison lawsuit.
4. How did Marbury v. Madison change the balance of power in the U.S. government?
This case fundamentally shifted the balance of power by elevating the judicial branch to an equal footing with the legislative and executive branches. Before this decision, the Supreme Court's role was not as clearly defined. By establishing the power of judicial review, the Court positioned itself as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, able to check the power of Congress and the President, thereby ensuring a system of checks and balances.
5. Why is the Supreme Court's decision in Marbury v. Madison often called a brilliant strategic move?
The decision is considered brilliant because Chief Justice John Marshall managed to achieve a major long-term victory from a position of weakness. By ruling that the Supreme Court lacked the authority to force Marbury's commission, he avoided a direct and likely unwinnable conflict with President Jefferson. However, in doing so, he declared a part of a congressional act unconstitutional, establishing the far more significant and lasting power of judicial review for the Court.
6. What was the immediate result for William Marbury, and why did he not get his commission?
William Marbury never received his commission and did not become a judge. Although the Supreme Court agreed that Marbury had a legal right to his commission, it concluded that it did not have the constitutional authority to issue the writ of mandamus (a court order) to force James Madison to deliver it. The Court found that the law giving it that power, the Judiciary Act of 1789, was itself unconstitutional.
7. What specific law was declared unconstitutional in this case and why?
The Supreme Court declared Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. This section granted the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus in cases of original jurisdiction. Chief Justice Marshall argued that this law expanded the Court's original jurisdiction beyond what was specified in Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, any congressional act that conflicts with it must be struck down.
