Marbury v. Madison

Background:

Marbury v. Madison was the first case in which the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated a law passed by Congress. In the late 1790s and early 1800s, American political life was divided between Federalists, led by John Adams, and Democratic-Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson. After losing the election, the outgoing President Adams attempted to appoint Federalist allies as a way to influence the government while they were out of political power. As a result, the appointment of these “midnight judges” was extremely controversial.

The Case:

On March 2, 1801, the day before the end of his presidency, Adams nominated Marbury to serve in the newly created post of justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. The Senate approved Marbury’s nomination the next day. Adams signed Marbury’s commission and Marshall, the Secretary of State, affixed an official seal to the document. Despite this, Marbury had not received his commission when Marshall left office shortly after Adams.

Marshall’s successor, James Madison, on behalf of the new President Jefferson, refused to deliver the commission, so Marbury sued Madison in the Supreme Court, seeking a writ of mandamus. A petition for writs of mandamus is a legal request for an official to perform his or her duty they have failed to act on. While the petition was pending before the Court, Congress passed a law changing the timing of the Supreme Court’s term, meaning the Court did not reopen until February 1803.

Debates from each side:

Marbury believed that as he had been appointed a judge, the delivery of the commission was a simple formality that Madison was bound by duty to perform. He argued that Madison’s high office did not insulate him from accountability to the law. Despite this, when the Supreme Court eventually heard the case, Madison declined to appear, apparently believing that the Court did not have the power to compel him to give Marbury his commission. His argument was that the Court had no authority to force the executive branch, and that without the delivery of the commission, the appointment wasn't complete.

Verdict:

After hearing Marbury’s arguments, now Chief Justice, John Marshall, wrote an opinion for a unanimous Court. Marshall then broke the case down into three questions:

1. Was Marbury entitled to the judicial commission?

2. Did the law provide him with a “remedy” (a way to get the commission)?

3. Was the appropriate remedy a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court?

   
   

   He answered yes to the first two, however the third was more complicated. A part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, the federal law that organized the federal court system, provided that the Supreme Court had the power to issue writs of mandamus. However, this grant of power exceeded the Court’s jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution. It a law conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution outweighs it. Marshall reasoned that Congress could not give the Court powers that were not included in the Constitution, so the part of the Judiciary Act that gave the Court the ability to hear original suits seeking writs of mandamus was unconstitutional. It was essentially found that the Supreme Court didn't have the power to force Maddison to deliver the commission, leading to Marbury loosing the case.

Legacy:

This case established the concept of judicial review, meaning that courts can declare laws unconstitutional. While the power was not explicitly written in the Constitution, Marshall argued that it was implied. It reinforced the idea that the constitution is the highest law, and laws that violate it can be rejected. This allowed later courts to strike down laws in cases such as Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, and Obergefell v. Hodges. The principal of judicial review, established by this case, remains important even now, and helps contribute to the checks and balances that limit one branch of government from having too much unchecked power.