Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Background:

• In 1800, John Adams, the outgoing President of the United States, appointed several justices of the peace for the District of Columbia, including William Marbury.
• These appointments were made in the final days of Adams’ presidency, and the commissions for these appointments were not delivered before the end of his term.
• Thomas Jefferson, the incoming President, instructed his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver the commissions.
• Marbury and several others who had been appointed but not received their commissions petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus, a court order requiring Madison to deliver the commissions.

Issue:

• The primary issue in the case was whether the Supreme Court had the authority to issue writs of mandamus, as specified in the Judiciary Act of 1789, Section 13.
• Additionally, it raised the question of whether Marbury had a legal right to his commission and whether the Court could enforce that right.

Decision:

• Chief Justice John Marshall, writing the unanimous opinion for the Court, held that Marbury and the others had a right to their commissions and that the Judiciary Act of 1789, Section 13, did indeed grant the Supreme Court the authority to issue writs of mandamus.
• However, Marshall also ruled that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional because it expanded the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what was specified in the Constitution.
• As a result, Marshall established the principle of judicial review, which is the power of the courts to review and potentially invalidate laws or actions of the executive branch that are deemed unconstitutional.
• In this case, the Court could not issue the writ of mandamus because the law that granted it that authority was unconstitutional.
• This decision effectively limited the power of the Supreme Court while simultaneously establishing its authority to review the constitutionality of laws.

Significance:

• Marbury v. Madison is one of the most significant cases in U.S. legal history because it established the principle of judicial review, which remains a fundamental aspect of the American legal system.
• The case affirmed the Supreme Court’s role as the final arbiter of the Constitution’s meaning and interpretation.
• It set a precedent for the Court’s ability to review and potentially strike down laws passed by Congress or actions taken by the executive branch that are inconsistent with the Constitution.
• This case reinforced the system of checks and balances in the United States government by ensuring that the judiciary had a role in ensuring that the other branches of government did not exceed their constitutional authority.
• It also highlighted the importance of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.