Mr. Dalton’s Class
Name:______________
Date:______________
/14pts
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Historical Background
Perhaps no case in U.S. history was as central to the development of the Supreme Court as a full partner in the national
government as Marbury v. Madison. Neither, perhaps, has there been another so highly charged with partisan controversy.
The election of 1800 had resulted in a resounding defeat of President John Adams and the Federalist party by Thomas
Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans. Jefferson gained the presidency, and the upstart Republicans won a majority in
the Congress. Only in the federal judiciary did the Federalists–through appointed judges, serving possibly for life–remain
dominant in the National Government. In a final, postelection session, the retiring Congress moved to ensure the
Federalist hold on the courts by passing the Judiciary Act of 1801, which created 15 new federal judgeships to be
appointed before the lame-duck Federalist President surrendered his office to the rival party. Adams literally "burned the
midnight oil" on his last night in office to complete the appointments of these "midnight justices." In fact, so hurried was
the rush to make the appointments that many of the new commissions signed by President Adams were left sealed on the
desk of the secretary of state to be delivered by the incoming administration.
One of the first acts of the new Republican-dominated Congress was to repeal the Federalists' last-minute judiciary act
and recess the Federalist-dominated Supreme Court for 14 months. Early in 1803, the six justices finally convened, with
Chief Justice John Marshall presiding.
Circumstances of the Case
William Marbury was one of the "midnight justices,"
appointed a justice of the peace for the District of
Columbia in the final days of the Adams administration.
But when the Republican secretary of state, James
Madison, found the appointment documents scattered
around his desk on the morning he took office, he took
them to the new President, Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson felt
the last-minute appointments another effort by Adams and
the Federalists to keep a foothold in the government, and
he ordered his secretary of state not to deliver them.
When Madison refused to deliver Marbury's commission,
Marbury asked the Supreme Court to issue a writ of
mandamus, ordering the secretary of state to surrender the
appointment. Section XIII of the Judiciary Act of 1789
gave the Supreme Court the authority to resolve conflicts
of this sort by issuing such writs.
Constitutional Issues
The case involved the Court's interpretation of Article III
of the Constitution, the Judicial Powers, and Article I,
Legislative Powers. Did Marbury have a right to his
commission, since it was signed and sealed but not
delivered? Could the Supreme Court issue a writ of
mandamus to Secretary of State Madison? Did the
Supreme Court have authority to act under Section XIII of
the Judiciary Act of 1789? Was Section XIII of the
Judiciary Act a lawful, reasonable, and constitutional use
The law was a strictly political move by the Federalists to
retain control of one part of the government, and was,
therefore, clearly improper.
Decision and Rationale
By a unanimous vote (6-0), the Court delivered its historic
decision. Chief Justice Marshall's complex ruling deemed
Marbury's request for the writ of mandamus reasonable
given the particulars of the case, but the Court could not
decide the case on its particulars, because the particular
redress sought was not constitutional.
In giving the Court the power to issue writs of mandamus
in the Judiciary Act of 1789, Marshall argued, Congress
had committed an act which went beyond "the intent of the
framers"–since the Constitution itself granted no such
power to the Court. ". . .[T]he power of the judiciary is
narrowly defined in the Constitution, and does not include
the power to issue such a writ," Marshall wrote. If the
power of the Supreme Court was expanded beyond that
intended by the Framers, then the Court could not
constitutionally act on Marbury's request. In short, the
Court could issue no writ of mandamus to Madison
because such action was beyond the scope of its powers.
"A law repugnant to the Constitution is void," Marshall
declared, and the ". . .courts, as well as other departments,
are bound by that instrument."
With a sweeping step, the Court moved into new territory.
Noting that "We feel that the court must obey the
Mr. Dalton’s Class
of the powers granted the National Government in the
Constitution, or was it, in fact, unconstitutional? If so, did
the Constitution give to the Court the power to declare a
law unconstitutional?
Arguments
For Marbury: Since Marbury's commission had been
signed and sealed by proper authority, he was entitled to
his appointment. The Court was authorized to issue the
writ of mandamus under the Judiciary Act of 1789. Since
Madison was clearly not doing his proper duty as a public
official, the Court should issue the writ to compel him to
do so.
For Madison: The commissions were based on a law (the
Judiciary Act of 1801) that had been repealed at a later
date by Congress.
Name:______________
Date:______________
/14pts
Constitution and not the unconstitutional statute," the
decision struck down portions of the Judiciary Act of 1789,
declaring them unconstitutional. More important than the
decision reached on Marbury's particular case was the new
prerogative the Court asserted for itself with this step: it
laid claim to the power of judicial review. "It is
emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is. . . ," Marshall wrote,
thus asserting the judicial review power which gives the
Supreme Court ultimate authority for judging the
constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.
As the instrument for firmly establishing the power of
judicial review, this landmark decision helped to make the
judicial branch an equal partner in the United States
Government.
Questions for Discussion
1. Did John Marshall go beyond the Constitution when he applied the concept of “judicial review” in Marbury?
2. Is “judicial review” a logical power for the Supreme Court?
3. Would members of the Court, so soon after the writing of the Constitution, be more likely to have some idea of
“the intent of the Framers” than members of the Court have today?
4. Do you think the decision satisfied Marbury? Do you think the decision satisfied Jefferson and Madison?
5. What was the principal effect of the decision on the operation of the national judiciary?
6. At what other times in national history did the Court and the President find themselves on opposite sides of
questions about national powers? (Examples: 1857, Dred Scott v. Sanford; 1866, Ex parte Milligan; 1930s, New
Deal Programs; 1952, Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. U.S.; 1974, United States v. Nixon.)