MARBURY v MADISON, 5 U.S. 127 (1803)
5 U.S. 137 (Cranch)
WILLIAM MARBURY
v.
JAMES MADISON, Secretary of State of the United State.
Case Brief Author: Darlene Mohan
William Marbury was commissioned as a justice of the peace officer for Washington
County at the end of President Adams term as president in 1801. The appointment was
confirmed by the Senate, signed by the president and the document was notarized. (sealed).
Because William Marbury had not been given his commission; William Marbury along with
three others decided to sue the Secretary of State James Madison in the Supreme Court and asked
that the court issue an order mandating that they be given their positions as justices of the peace.
This order is called a writ of mandamus.
William Marbury felt that his constitutional right had been violated due to the fact that the
Secretary of State withheld their commissions. He also believed that the writ of mandamus was
the only remedy for the constitutional violation. William Marbury felt that the Supreme Court
was the proper jurisdiction to hear this matter due to the passage of the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Under this act, the Supreme Court “was given authorization to issue writs of mandamus as part
of the court’s original jurisdiction rather than having to go through the appellate process.”
(www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw)
The justice handling the case that was brought forth was Justice Marshall. He had to
decide whether or not William Marbury’s right to his commission was violated under the
constitutional law because they withheld the commission from him. Justice Marshall also had to
consider whether or not the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to issue the remedy over the case
because the Judiciary Act section 13 gave power to the Supreme Court to issue writs of
mandamus “to any courts appointed or persons holding office, under the authority of the United
States.”
Justice Marshall ruled that he did find that the commission documentation was indeed
signed by the president, approved by the senate and the document was sealed making it valid and
irrevocable and that Mr. Marbury did indeed have a legal right to the commission. However, he
said that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction over the case and believed that the law that
was enacted under the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional. The basis for this decision was that
Article III section 2 of the Constitution states in the distribution of power it is declared that ‘the
supreme court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls and those where a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the supreme
court shall have appellate jurisdiction.’ [5 U.S.137.174] Justice Marshall believed that while
William Marbury was entitled to the remedy however he could not issue the writ of mandamus
because the Supreme Court did not have the power to act as original jurisdiction.
This was an important decision because it was the first time that the Supreme Court had
looked at a law that was passed by Congress and determined that it was unconstitutional. Justice
Marshall stated that “ it is not entirely unworthy of observation that in declaring what shall be the
supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United
States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution shall have
rank.”[5 U.S.137.174]
This decision is still very important to our judicial system today because the Supreme
Court has the authority to declare laws unconstitutional which we call judicial review. This
protects society’s interests by having a checks and balance system and insures that our rights as
individuals are not infringed upon. Congress can not pass laws for their own benefit, it has to
pass the test and be in accordance with the supreme law which is the Constitution.
References:
www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S.137 (1803)
Court Case Brief # 1
October 2, 2008
TINKER, PETITIONER, v. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
RESPONDENT
Supreme Court of the United States of America
393 U.S. 503 (1969)
Monday, February 24, 1969, Decision
Facts John (15) & Mary Beth Tinker (13) and Christopher Echardt (16) decided to protest the
Vietnam War with their parents during the holiday season (Christmas/New Years). The three
students wore black arm bands with a peace sign on them, right before the winter holiday
season to their school. The principals of the Des Moines school district (high school for the
boys and middle school for Mary Beth) thought the arm bands to be seen as a future
disturbance so they asked the adolescents to remove the arm bands or be suspended from
school. The school board was made known of the armband incident and went ahead and
made a rule saying there were not to be any wearing of armbands in or on school property, or
the child will be faced with suspension. Echardt and Mary Beth both came to school the next
day with the arm bands on, John wore his the following day. All three students were
suspended until after New Year’s Day holiday for their action against the newly passed rule by
the Board of Education.
Procedural History –
The plaintiff’s complaints were dismissed in the S.D Iowa in 1966. It was then
affirmed in 1967 in the 8th Circuit of Appeals. A writ of certiorari was granted in 1968 to be
heard in the United State Supreme Court.
Issue –
In the case of the student’s wearing armbands to voice their opinions about the
Vietnam War, was their first amendment rights violated? Because the student’s could not
voice their opinions, in a symbolic protest, of the war in the form of an armband, does this
give the right of the school board the right to take that away?
Reasoning –
The court’s decision was found on February 24, 1969 by a 7 to 2 vote. The vote stated
that the 1st and 14th amendment rights would have to have a firm demonstration for its
reasons against any regulations of speech in the classroom. The majority opinion was written
by Justice Abe Fortas saying that the issue of the speech regulation in Tinker was based as a
“silent symbol” and did not oppose the war in a bad way. The armbands therefore did not
cause any “disruption” as the school board for-sought, there for the activity was
constitutionally protected by the 1st amendment thought the 14th amendment rights.
The dissenting justices were Black and Harlan II. They both believed that under the 1st
(and 14th) amendments that symbolic speech was not constitutionally protected. They also
believed that their actions, wearing the armbands, were indeed disruptive.
Holding –
The 1st amendment rights of the students, as applied through the 14th amendment in
this case, did not give permission for a public school to punish the students. The fact that the
students were wearing an anti-war protest armband should not have made the school treat
them any differently than any other student. There was no evidence from the school board
that there was evidence that the rule was necessary to avoid substantial obstruction with the
discipline of the students or the violation of their rights.
Implication - (Societal, social policy, sociological)
Tinkers’ implication of wearing the armband was to show his emotion toward the war.
He did not want to show it though words so he told it though a black armband with a peace
sign on it. He felt there was no harm being done to the country as a whole but rather just
trying to make a stand.
Precedent cases –
o West Virginia v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
o Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931)
o Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940)
o Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963)
o Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131 (1966)
Principles from class or readings –
Tinkers’ case was one that needed a legit cause to have a win. Wearing arm bands is
not an illegal thing, if the armband had something that was illegal (or vulgar) on it then it
would have cause to question.
The 1st amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances.
US Supreme Court
Luther V. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849)
Case Brief by David Buehne
Legal Issue
In 1842 the State of Rhode Island’s government was still using the same system that had been
established in 1663 by a royal charter. Citizens of Rhode Island who were unhappy with this
system drafted a new state constitution and submitted it for ratification, as well as held elections
for it. The existing government refused to cede power and the two sides fought over the state
government. The legal issue in this case is the question: Does the Supreme Court have the power
to determine a state’s government?
Facts of the Case
The facts of this case are that in 1842 the original Rhode Island state government feared it was
going to be overthrown by a revolt. Because of this they declared martial law and formed
militias comprised of its citizens. One militia was ordered to enter the home of a supporter of the
new government named Martin Luther. Luther Borden, a member of the militia entered Martin
Luther’s home and searched the premises. Luther brought suit against Borden for unlawfully
entering his home. He stated that the current government was not a republican form of
government, and therefore its actions were invalid.
Rules and Reasoning behind the Decision
The court determined that it was not the authority of the courts to decide how a state government
is to be created. This was essentially a political matter and the court would defer to congress and
the President on matters such as this. Chief Justice Taney says in the courts decision that the
constitution does not warrant a circuit court to certify to the Supreme Court a question of law
that arouse during a trial. Basically, there were no provisions in the constitution to help the court
deal with this type of case.
The Holding
The ruling of the court was that the legislative and executive branches of government are
responsible for resolving certain constitutional issues. Chief Justice Taney cited the “political
questions” doctrine. He said that this was a political issued to be settled by political power. The
Supreme Court was not the appropriate institution to define a state’s government.
Summary of Dissents
There was one dissent made by Justice Woodbury. He agrees with the court for the most part
about this case. Where he disagrees is about the points concerning martial law. The problem is
that he does not state what his disagreement is about. Instead Justice Woodbury asks to be
excused from this part of the case because it takes place in the circuit where he lives. This
causes some kind of conflict of interest in his mind. Another point that is worth talking about is
the fact that 3 justices were not present for this case due to illness.
Importance of the Case
There are many aspects of this case that are important to our society. This case has basically set
a precedent for the Supreme Court to not get involved with political issues, and pass them along
to the legislature and executive branches. This held true until the fourteenth amendment was
passed. This included the equal protection clause, which gave the courts some discresion over
political matters. At the time that this case was being heard it would have been very important to
that society. The people in Rhode Island still would have been confused about which
government was in power, and they really needed a decision about this situation. This case did
have some long lasting effects that we can still see in our court system today, but it also must
have been a very important case to the people in Rhode Island and the country at that time. The
underlying issue of this entire case is suffrage. People were unhappy with the current
government because they still used the old way of determining if people could vote or not. They
said that a person had to be a land owner in order to vote. Many people at this time did not own
land, yet were not poor either. This was the real reason for the revolt and formation of the new
government.
Principles related to Class
There are many principles that we have talked about in class that can be related to this court case.
I am going to focus on two of them. The first thing I will look at is the kind of law is shown
here. Are the principles and laws being used natural law, or positive law? When you look at the
question of whether people can vote or not, based on if they own land, you can clearly see this is
a positive form of law. This law was created by the people in power, and has nothing to do with
ethics or morality. The main law discussed in the actual court case, really is no law at all. The
court wanted to know if they had the authority to decide the legitimacy of a state government.
There was no clear rule or law for this situation, and they basically passed it along to the next
group in the chain of power. The next principle I will look at is the system of law that was used
in the time of this case. I think we can all agree that the system of law at work here is common
law. The United States at this time was free from Great Britain, but was still using there form of
law and government. Common law originated in Great Britain, and was passed along to its
colonies, including the United States. When this case went to court, the Justices looked to the
constitution for rules regarding this issue. Also, the court used an adversarial system, where two
side argue there cases.
References
Luther v. Borden. U.S. Supreme Court, 48 U.S. 1 (1849). Quimbee: Case Brief Data Base.,
http://www.quimbee.com/quimbee/case-detail/luther20%borden20%
Sample Case and Brief(1999). Law Nerds. http://www.lawnerds.com/guide/briefing.html
Supreme Court of the United States 48 U.S. 1, Luther v. Borden. Cornel University Law School.
http://wwww.law.cornel.edu/suspect/html.histories
U.S. Supreme Court Luther V. Borden(1849). Find Law.
http://www.caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcasepl?
Amanda Andriole
October 2, 2008
SOC 318 Court Case Brief #1
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka U.S. 1954
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka is a famous case that involves Negro plaintiffs
that filed a suit against a public school board on the means of segregation. In 1954 the case went
through four United States District Courts and finally reached the Supreme Court of Delaware
where Chief Justice Warren heard and delivered the opinion to the court. There is a state statue
of Kansas that “requires cities of more than 15,000 population to maintain separate school
facilities for Negro and white students.”
Some of the main facts within this case, on the side of Brown, are that other public
schools within the area of Kansas are operated in a nonsegregated way. The segregation of these
students will have a psychological effect upon these segregated children. The facts on the Board
of Education side weighs heavily on the aspect that although the schools were separated, they
were still equal. The students were just not intertwined with one another, but each had equal
opportunity to gain an free public education. The Negros argued the fact that “separate but
equal” was in violation to the Fourteenth Amendment, and that they were being deprived of the
their equal protection rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. The facilities were
separated, and that was not being equal in any means, equality had been argued throughout the
case as the idea of allowing the races to be in the public schools together.
This case had been denied by the Federal District Court judges because they were in
agreement with the idea of the facilities being separate as long as they were equal. These judges
had ruled in this favor because segregation had been a persisting problem across the nation, not
just in the south, however due to the War, any progress especially along the south, had not
improved with public education. After many appeals and fighting, and majority of opinions
saying separate but equal is fair and constitutional, the case finally reached the Supreme Court in
which Mr. Chief Justice Warren had delivered his opinion to the court.
The court had ruled in favor of Brown, that separate but equal was not constitutional and
was indeed in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mr. Chief Justice Warren stated clearly
which sums up the entire ruling delivered to the court that:
“…segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the
physical facilities and other tangible factors may be equal, deprives the children of the
minority group of equal educational opportunities, in contravention of the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
A summary of the reasoning behind any concurrences and dissents of this case was that
there were not any. It was a majority opinion that was unanimous. The entire case involving
separate but equal obligations was in total violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the
people were being deprived of their individual equal protection rights. The majority ruled in
favor of the Fourteenth Amendment that “no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law, or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.”
The societal implications of this case are that regardless of the states across the nation
and the color of one’s skin, there will be no segregation on the basis involving that. Every
individual will have an equal chance to a public education that will help build upon their future.
The case has stated which answers this question completely, “…it is doubtful that any child may
reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education.” With
that being said the social policy implication has greatly affected our society, because every
individual needs a strong education to develop from that will aide in the successfulness of their
future.
This case relates to a lot of different situations that have arisen in the discussions and
readings we have done in class. This case is fairly recent, and is a major turning point in the
learning process of today. This case has affected the public education system and has given every
student the equal opportunity to an education, in which they will be treated equally and fairly.
This case is also a very dominant case that is used as precedent for other cases involving issues
of race and segregation. We have spent much time talking about law making and violating, and
this is a clear example of how a rule in government protects the people under which it governs.
Congress and the Legislation work endlessly to provide equal opportunity and advances for
everyone in our country.
References: Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, (1954). U.S. Supreme Court
ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
410 U.S. 113
ROE ET AL. v. WADE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF DALLAS COUNTY
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF
TEXAS
No. 70-18.
Argued December 13, 1971 Reargued October 11, 1972
Decided January 22, 1973
Brief Author: Christina Nacci
Issue:
Can states criminalize abortion? When is abortion acceptable? When does the State have the
right to step in?
Facts:
- Pregnant single woman (Roe) challenged the state of Texas constitution on criminal
abortion laws
- Roe wished to terminate her pregnancy by an abortion "performed by a competent,
licensed physician, under safe, clinical conditions"
- Roe claimed that the Texas statutes were vague and that they abridged her right of
personal privacy
- This law is against abortion unless it is for the purpose of saving the mother’s life.
- Roe has standing to sue, the Does and Hallford does not.
Rule of Law:
- State criminal abortion laws, that except from criminality only in the case of a life saving
procedure, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects
against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate
her pregnancy.
- The State cannot override the right to privacy, but it does have interests in protecting both
the pregnant woman’s health and the potential human life. These interests grow at various
stages of the woman’s approach to term.
Reasoning:
- When these state laws were made, they were designed solely to protect the women.
Because medical advances have lessened this concern, in respect to abortion in early
pregnancies, the law does not apply.
- The right of privacy is broad enough to include a woman’s decision whether or not to
terminate her pregnancy.
-
It would be detrimental to deny women this choice. There are many factors, possible
physical and mental harm to both mother and child, that need to be considered.
Though the courts recognize a right to privacy, there also needs to be some state
regulation in some areas. Because of health interests, medical standards and protecting
potential life the privacy right can not be absolute.
Holding:
- For the stage before the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision must be left to the
pregnant woman’s attending physician.
- For the stage following the end of the first trimester, the State, in the interest of the
mother, may if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure, in ways that are reasonably
related to maternal health.
- For the stage subsequent to viability, in the interest of potential human life, may if it
chooses, regulate or even forbid abortion. Unless it is necessary for the health of the
mother.
This was a very controversial case regarding the topic of abortion. It is still sociologically
relevant, because it is still being debated to this day. This is still a very sensitive subject, abortion
beliefs are directly related to religious beliefs and life and family values. Population growth,
pollution, race and poverty are also directly related to this controversy and they tend to
complicate matters.
It also does not help that these laws are relatively old and do not apply to our society in many
ways. One of the ways that is does not apply is that these laws were made to protect women.
Back when these laws were made there was high abortion mortality. Standard modern techniques
such as dilation and curettage were not nearly as safe as they are today. But that is not that case
today, so that particular reasoning of the State does not apply.
A problem with developing these laws is trying to decide when the fetus is technically
considered a person. Some say it is considered living as soon as it is conceived, which would
then make abortion a type of homicide. Some say it is not until the fetus begins to move, which
is around the 16th to the 18th week of pregnancy. This is something that is based on one’s own
personal beliefs, which makes this topic even more difficult to debate.
This is a case of judiciaries developing new laws and interpreting the old laws. The courts
deemed the abortion law too vague, and clearly violating a constitutional right. Therefore, they
changed the old laws in order to fit into today’s society. What was a court case between an
individual and the State, turned into something that affected a whole society.
References:
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html