Marbury V. Madison (1803)
Background
Election of 1800

Jefferson v. Adams
 Jefferson Wins

John Marshall = Adams’ Sec of State
 Jan 20th - Marshall appt to Chief Justice

Adams nominates 200 men to new offices
 William Marbury nominated as justice of peace

President (Adams) signs commissions / Sec of State (Marshall) seals them
 March 2-3: In chaos of last days, Marbury’s commission is lost

March 4: Madison becomes new Sec of State / Jeff. new President
 They deny appointment since never delivered / Marbury appeals to supreme court

Marbury asks for writ of mandamus
 Writ orders public officials to carry out duties

Jeff / Mad vow to ignore writ if issued
 They believed Supreme Court had no power to enforce writ over other two branches

Marbury’s Case
 Judiciary Act of 1789 gave Supreme Court authority to issue writ of mandamus under original
jurisdiction
 Congress created office, Senate confirmed appointment
 Madison’s delivery of commission not a discretionary act

3 Issues
o Did Marbury have the right to the commission?
o Did the law provide him a means to attain it?
o Did Supreme Court have original jurisdiction in this case? (Did Section 13 of Judiciary Act
violate Constitution)
Opinion of the Court
Marshall’s Decision

Marbury due his commission
 To withhold would violate the law

Judiciary Act of ’89 authorized court to issue writ of mandamus (proper legal procedure)

However, Marshall worried that Madison would ignore court order
 Could cause Constitutional crisis
Marshall’s “Out”
 Supreme Court not designed to be a trial court in this circumstance, appeals only (Art. 3 Sec. 2 Clause
2)
 Therefore, Supreme Court not authorized to issue writ
 Judiciary Act of 1789 violated the Constitution
Marbury V. Madison (1803)
Outcome



Marbury did not get writ
Marshall avoided confrontation with Madison / Jefferson
Asserted power of judicial review
Justifying Judicial Review
1. Article 3 Sec 2 : Judicial power extended to “All cases, in law and equity, arising under the
Constitution.”
a. Judges cannot decide constitutional cases without also examining “instrument under which
it arises.”
2. Article 6: Judges pledge to “support Constitution”
a. Therefore, they cannot support decisions that violate constitution.
3. Article 6: Supremacy clause cites Constitution before laws of US.
a. No act that violates Constitution (highest law) can be valid.

“It is… the province and duty of the judicial department, to say what law is.” When law/act is in
opposition to the constitution, “the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to
which both apply.”
Significance



Provided Constitutional basis for judicial review
Laid foundation on which Supreme Court developed into important/powerful branch of Federal
Gov’t
Full acceptance of judicial review did not occur until after Civil War, but established principle that
courts and gov’t should not enforce unconstitutional Federal Laws.
*** Source: Supreme Court Student Companion p. 209-212