Case 1 - 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 DemocraticRepublicans. 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.
The law was a strictly political move by the Federalists to retain
Circumstances of the Case
control of one part of the government, and was, therefore, clearly
William Marbury was one of the "midnight justices," appointed a
improper.
justice of the peace for the District of Columbia in the final days
Decision and Rationale
of the Adams administration. But when the Republican secretary
of state, James Madison, found the appointment documents
By a unanimous vote (6-0), the Court delivered its historic
scattered around his desk on the morning he took office, he took
decision. Chief Justice Marshall's complex ruling deemed
them to the new President, Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson felt the
Marbury's request for the writ of mandamus reasonable given the
last-minute appointments another effort by Adams and the
particulars of the case, but the Court could not decide the case on
Federalists to keep a foothold in the government, and he ordered
its particulars, because the particular redress sought was not
his secretary of state not to deliver them.
constitutional.
When Madison refused to deliver Marbury's commission,
In giving the Court the power to issue writs of mandamus in the
Marbury asked the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus,
Judiciary Act of 1789, Marshall argued, Congress had committed
ordering the secretary of state to surrender the appointment.
an act which went beyond "the intent of the framers"–since the
Section XIII of the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme
Constitution itself granted no such power to the Court. ". . .[T]he
Court the authority to resolve conflicts of this sort by issuing
power of the judiciary is narrowly defined in the Constitution,
such writs.
and does not include the power to issue such a writ," Marshall
wrote. If the power of the Supreme Court was expanded beyond
Constitutional Issues
that intended by the Framers, then the Court could not
The case involved the Court's interpretation of Article III of the
constitutionally act on Marbury's request. In short, the Court
Constitution, the Judicial Powers, and Article I, Legislative
could issue no writ of mandamus to Madison because such
Powers. Did Marbury have a right to his commission, since it
action was beyond the scope of its powers. "A law repugnant to
was signed and sealed but not delivered? Could the Supreme
the Constitution is void," Marshall declared, and the ". . .courts,
Court issue a writ of mandamus to Secretary of State Madison?
as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
Did the Supreme Court have authority to act under Section XIII
With a sweeping step, the Court moved into new territory.
of the Judiciary Act of 1789? Was Section XIII of the Judiciary
Noting that "We feel that the court must obey the Constitution
Act a lawful, reasonable, and constitutional use of the powers
and not the unconstitutional statute," the decision struck down
granted the National Government in the Constitution, or was it,
portions of the Judiciary Act of 1789, declaring them
in fact, unconstitutional? If so, did the Constitution give to the
unconstitutional. More important than the decision reached on
Court the power to declare a law unconstitutional?
Marbury's particular case was the new prerogative the Court
Arguments
asserted for itself with this step: it laid claim to the power of
For Marbury: Since Marbury's commission had been signed
judicial review. "It is emphatically the province and duty of the
and sealed by proper authority, he was entitled to his
judicial department to say what the law is. . . ," Marshall wrote,
appointment. The Court was authorized to issue the writ of
thus asserting the judicial review power which gives the
mandamus under the Judiciary Act of 1789. Since Madison was
Supreme Court ultimate authority for judging the
clearly not doing his proper duty as a public official, the Court
constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.
should issue the writ to compel him to do so.
As the instrument for firmly establishing the power of judicial
For Madison: The commissions were based on a law (the
review, this landmark decision helped to make the judicial
Judiciary Act of 1801) that had been repealed at a later date by
branch an equal partner in the United States Government.
Congress.