Marbury v. Madison (1803)
FACTS
1. What did President Jefferson instruct his secretary of state, James Madison, to do?
2. How was William Marbury impacted by this instruction? Role of President Adams here.
3. For what purpose did Marbury seek a writ of mandamus?
RULE/HOLDING
4. Did the Supreme Court rule in Marbury’s favor or against? What is the holding?
REASONING
5. What does Chief Justice Marshall argue regarding Marbury’s right to a commission, that is,
“when a commission has been signed by the President, the appointment is made . . .”?
6. . . . . regarding Marbury’s “right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy”?
7. . . . . regarding “Questions, in their nature political, or which are, by the constitution and laws,
submitted to the executive”?
8. . . . . regarding ministerial responsibilities that have been carried out, i.e., where the official “is
directed by law to do a certain act affecting the absolute rights of individuals”? Can the federal
judiciary provide a remedy, including a writ of mandamus?
9. . . . . regarding Section 13 of the 1789 Judiciary Act on “original jurisdiction”?
10. . . . . regarding “the province and duty of the judicial department”?
11. So, in essence, can the court review the constitutionality of executive and legislative actions?
BACK TO HOLDING
12. So, in essence, Marbury is denied his remedy because . . . .
LEGACY AND DEVELOPMENT OF MARBURY
13. How does Marbury v. Madison make possible the rule and holding of the Supreme Court in
United States v. Nixon
14. How do Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee and Cohens v. Virginia each build upon the legacy of Marbury
v. Madison?
a. For instance, in Martin, Justice Story (writing the opinion of the court) immediate
discusses procedural history, citing the “writ of error to the court of appeals of Virginia”
and the “the judgement of the court of appeals, rendered on the mandate” and, then, in
his reasoning, repeatedly cites Section 25 of the Judiciary Act.
b. For instance, in Cohens, Justice Marshall immediately cites Secition 25 to establish what
principle of appellate jurisdiction?