Facts of the Case
Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the 1800 presidential election. Before Jefferson took office on March 4, 1801, Adams and Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which created new courts, added judges, and gave the president more control over appointment of judges. The Act was essentially an attempt by Adams and his party to frustrate his successor, as he used the act to appoint 16 new circuit judges and 42 new justices of the peace. The appointees were approved by the Senate, but they would not be valid until their commissions were delivered by the Secretary of State.
William Marbury had been appointed Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia, but his commission was not delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to compel the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver the documents. Marbury, joined by three other similarly situated appointees, petitioned for a writ of mandamus compelling the delivery of the commissions.
Questions
Do the plaintiffs have a right to receive their commissions?
Can they sue for their commissions in court?
Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order the delivery of their commissions?
Conclusions
-
The Court found that Madison’s refusal to deliver the commission was illegal, but did not order Madison to hand over Marbury’s commission via writ of mandamus. Instead, the Court held that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 enabling Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional, since it purported to extend the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III, Section 2, established.
Marshall expanded that a writ of mandamus was the proper way to seek a remedy, but concluded the Court could not issue it. Marshall reasoned that the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with the Constitution. Congress did not have power to modify the Constitution through regular legislation because Supremacy Clause places the Constitution before the laws.
In so holding, Marshall established the principle of judicial review, i.e., the power to declare a law unconstitutional.
Marbury v. Madison [SCOTUSbrief]
Short video featuring Gary Lawson
In an effort to pack the courts following the election of 1800, William Marbury was...
Marbury v. Madison: Overruled
The Federalist Society is pleased to announce its Student Blog Initiative, a project of the...
The Unbearable Rightness of Marbury v. Madison: Its Real Lessons and Irrepressible Myths
Engage Volume 12, Issue 2, September 2011
For the last several years, I have taught Federal Jurisdiction at the University of Alabama...
Book Review: Who Decides?
Changing the Way We Think
I have been immersed in our legal culture for more than 30 years now, and...
Timeless Concepts for a Trying Time: The Separation of Powers and Judicial Review
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men,...
The Constitution is Not “What the Judges Say It Is”
In a recent article published in The Atlantic, Harvard Law School professor Adrian Vermeule says...
State Court Docket Watch: AZ School Boards Association et al. v. State of Arizona
Arizona’s Constitution requires that each bill passed by its Legislature contain only one subject and...
State Court Docket Watch: State v. Arevalo
State Court Docket Watch: 2020 Edition
People who want to challenge a state or federal law for violating their constitutional rights...
Can and Should the Federal Judiciary Rein In Our Expansive Administrative State?
Federalist Society Review, Volume 20
Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public...
State Court Docket Watch: HWCC-Tunica, Inc. v. Mississippi Dep’t of Revenue
State Court Docket Watch: 2020 Edition
Most discussions of judicial deference to administrative agencies center on federal doctrines like those established...
State Court Docket Watch: Bailey v. South Carolina State Election Commission
State Court Docket Watch: 2020 Edition
In Bailey v. South Carolina State Election Commission, the Supreme Court of South Carolina, accepting...
Deference and Independent Agencies
During the last week of its just-ended term, the Supreme Court handed down its much...
The Original Understanding of the Indian Commerce Clause: An Update
Federalist Society Review, Volume 23
The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and...
Pausing Military Aid to Israel is the President’s Constitutional Call
Emotions on the issue of pausing weapons shipments to Israel are understandably intense, but the...
The Unbearable Rightness of Marbury v. Madison
Chicago Student Chapter
The University of Chicago Law School1111 East 60th Street
Chicago, IL 60637
The Unbearable Rightness of Marbury v. Madison: Its Real Lessons and Irrepressible Myths
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 1111 Louisiana Street, 44th FloorHouston, 77002