Marbury v. Madison
Missing image SCOTUS_seal.jpg Supreme Court of the United States
Decided February 24, 1803
Full case name: William Marbury v. James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States Citations: 5 U.S. 137; 2 L. Ed. 60; 1803 U.S. LEXIS 352; 1 Cranch 137 Prior history: Original action filed in U.S. Supreme Court; order to show cause why writ of mandamus should not issue, December, 1801 Subsequent history: none
Holding
Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was void because it granted greater jurisdiction to the Supreme Court than the Constitution permitted. Congress could not pass valid legislation that was contrary to the Constitution, and it was the role of the federal courts to interpret what the Constitution permitted.
Court membership
Chief Justice John Marshall Associate Justices William Cushing, William Paterson, Samuel Chase, Bushrod Washington, Alfred Moore
Case opinions
Majority by: Marshall Joined by: Cushing, Paterson, Chase, Washington, Moore
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Art. I, III; Judiciary Act of 1789 § 13

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) is a landmark case in United States law wherein the U.S. Supreme Court established judicial review as a legitimate power of the Court on constitutional grounds. The Court ruled that it had the power to declare a statute void that it considered in contravention to the Constitution. Marbury established the judiciary—and in particular, the Supreme Court—as an equal partner among the three branches of the American federal government.

Contents

1 The Background 2 The case 3 The issues 4 The decision 5 Sources and further reading 6 External links

The Background

In the Presidential election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams, becoming the third U.S. President. Although the election was decided on February 17, Jefferson did not take office until March 4. Until that time, Adams and the Federalist-controlled U.S. Congress were still in power. Congress passed a new Judiciary Act, creating a number of new courts to be controlled by Federalists.

On March 2, Adams appointed 42 Federalists to these courts while sitting as a lame duck less than a week before the end of his term. The following day, on March 3, the judges were approved by the Senate. One of these "Midnight Judges" was William Marbury, appointed to a position as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia. At noon, Adams left office and Jefferson was inaugurated as President.

Marbury's commission, as well as that of others who were part of the lawsuit, was signed by Adams and John Marshall, his Secretary of State. As a complication of matters, Marshall had been appointed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on February 4, but had continued to act as Secretary of State until Jefferson was inaugurated. On March 3, Marshall became Chief Justice, and swore in Jefferson.

Jefferson treated as void the 42 commissions approved on Inauguration Day, including Marbury's, because they had not been officially delivered by day's end. He appointed James Madison as the new Secretary, and ordered him not to deliver the Marbury commission.

The case

In this case, Marbury brought the lawsuit directly in the Supreme Court, under the Judiciary Act of 1789. The requested remedy was an order (known as a writ of mandamus) directed against James Madison, the new Secretary of State, to transmit the commission to Marbury.

The issues

The questions before the Court were three:

1. Did Marbury have a right to the appointment?
2. Do the laws of the country give Marbury a legal remedy?
3. Is asking the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus the correct legal remedy?

The court, through Chief Justice Marshall, held that Marbury had a valid commission, good for five years. The question was whether the law gave him a remedy. The answer to that question was yes, because the refusal to deliver his commission to Marbury violated his right for which there had to be a remedy. The question then shifted to whether the Supreme Court was entitled to provide that remedy.

The decision

In analyzing the case, Marshall (and the court) examined the Judiciary Act of 1789, which stated that the Supreme Court could "issue writs of mandamus in cases...to any persons holding office under the authority of the United States." The Constitution, the Supreme Court held, confined its original jurisdiction—the ability to hear cases in the first instance—to "all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state be a party. In all other cases the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction."

The Court, on February 24, 1803, in a unanimous, 6-0 decision, held that Congress had no power to alter their original jurisdiction in this way and found unconstitutional a portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The opinion's brilliance lies in the way it simultaneously asserted the Court's power to hold acts of Congress unconstitutional and yet avoided a direct confrontation with the President by declaring it lacked jurisdiction over the case and thus could not order the Secretary of State to deliver those commissions.

Sources and further reading

1. Clinton, Robert Lowry. Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review. University Press of Kansas: 1991. ISBN 0700605177.
2. Marbury v. Madison. ^{[1] (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm)}
3. Nelson, William E. Marbury v. Madison: The Origins and Legacy of Judicial Review. University Press of Kansas: 2000. ISBN 0700610626.

External links

• Full text of the decision courtesy of Findlaw.com (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/5/137.html)

fr:Marbury v. Madison