Marbury v Madison (1803)
Overview: Perhaps the most significant case in Supreme Court history, Marybury v Madison expanded the role of the judicial branch by applying the principle of “judicial review”- the ability of federal courts to nullify congressional acts that they felt to be in violation of the Constitution. This landmark decision succeeded in giving the courts a newfound purpose and granted them significant power, rivaling that of the legislative and executive branches.
Conflict: The election of 1800 saw Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic Republican; become the nation’s first non-Federalist President. The Federalist’s, fearing that they could lose their political influence, entered a stage of panic, and in an attempt to keep people of his political affiliation in power, John Adams appointed a large number of judges for the District of Columbia. These commissions were approved by the Federalist controlled Senate and signed by the President, and needed only to be delivered. However the commissions were never sent, and when Jefferson assumed office in 1801, he ordered his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver them. One of the appointees, William Marbury, petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus (a command by a superior court to a public official/lower court to perform a special duty) against Madison, demanding to know why he should be denied his commission. The primary issues before the court were: Did Marbury have a right to his commission? And: Does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus?
Decision: The court unanimously decided not to require Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury. The issue of judicial review was addressed in the issue of whether or not the Supreme Court had the original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus. Marshall ruled that the court could not grant the writ because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 (which granted it the power to do so) was unconstitutional to the extent that it extended to cases of original jurisdiction. This power to bring cases directly to the Supreme Court itself was dealt with in Article III of the Constitution. Article III authorizes the Supreme Court to exercise its original jurisdiction only in cases involving "ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls and those cases in which a state shall be a party". The Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized the Supreme Court to "issue writs of mandamus... to persons holding office under the authority of the United States". By extending the courts authority/original jurisdiction to include cases like Marbury’s was unconstitutional, and in doing so Congress had overstepped its bounds. In short, Marshall ruled that the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court more authority than it was given under Constitution. This, while appearing counter intuitive, was genius on the part of Marshall, as while it appeared that the court was limiting its powers, it was drastically increasing them. In addition, by refusing to require Madison/Jefferson to deliver the commission to Marbury, he did not give Madison the opportunity to disobey the court, which would make it appear weak.
Chief Justice John Marshall Opinion
Lasting Impact from decision: Many of the Constitutional framers foresaw the Judicial branch as being the weakest of the three as it could not act unless acted upon and had no authority to enforce its decisions. However, the Supreme Court yields tremendous power. Their word is final. Only they can overturn their decisions. The only other measure that could be taken to overturn a Supreme Court ruling would be the passage of a Constitutional amendment. Established in Marbury v Madison, the court's most fundamental and significant power is judicial review, the ability to judge the constitutionality of any law of the executive or legislative branches. This was the legacy left and the precedent set by Marbury v Madison. It signifies the birth of judicial review, greatly expanding the role of the federal judiciary.
Overview: Perhaps the most significant case in Supreme Court history, Marybury v Madison expanded the role of the judicial branch by applying the principle of “judicial review”- the ability of federal courts to nullify congressional acts that they felt to be in violation of the Constitution. This landmark decision succeeded in giving the courts a newfound purpose and granted them significant power, rivaling that of the legislative and executive branches.
Conflict: The election of 1800 saw Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic Republican; become the nation’s first non-Federalist President. The Federalist’s, fearing that they could lose their political influence, entered a stage of panic, and in an attempt to keep people of his political affiliation in power, John Adams appointed a large number of judges for the District of Columbia. These commissions were approved by the Federalist controlled Senate and signed by the President, and needed only to be delivered. However the commissions were never sent, and when Jefferson assumed office in 1801, he ordered his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver them. One of the appointees, William Marbury, petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus (a command by a superior court to a public official/lower court to perform a special duty) against Madison, demanding to know why he should be denied his commission. The primary issues before the court were: Did Marbury have a right to his commission? And: Does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus?
Decision: The court unanimously decided not to require Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury. The issue of judicial review was addressed in the issue of whether or not the Supreme Court had the original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus. Marshall ruled that the court could not grant the writ because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 (which granted it the power to do so) was unconstitutional to the extent that it extended to cases of original jurisdiction. This power to bring cases directly to the Supreme Court itself was dealt with in Article III of the Constitution. Article III authorizes the Supreme Court to exercise its original jurisdiction only in cases involving "ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls and those cases in which a state shall be a party". The Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized the Supreme Court to "issue writs of mandamus... to persons holding office under the authority of the United States". By extending the courts authority/original jurisdiction to include cases like Marbury’s was unconstitutional, and in doing so Congress had overstepped its bounds. In short, Marshall ruled that the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court more authority than it was given under Constitution. This, while appearing counter intuitive, was genius on the part of Marshall, as while it appeared that the court was limiting its powers, it was drastically increasing them. In addition, by refusing to require Madison/Jefferson to deliver the commission to Marbury, he did not give Madison the opportunity to disobey the court, which would make it appear weak.
Chief Justice John Marshall Opinion
Lasting Impact from decision: Many of the Constitutional framers foresaw the Judicial branch as being the weakest of the three as it could not act unless acted upon and had no authority to enforce its decisions. However, the Supreme Court yields tremendous power. Their word is final. Only they can overturn their decisions. The only other measure that could be taken to overturn a Supreme Court ruling would be the passage of a Constitutional amendment. Established in Marbury v Madison, the court's most fundamental and significant power is judicial review, the ability to judge the constitutionality of any law of the executive or legislative branches. This was the legacy left and the precedent set by Marbury v Madison. It signifies the birth of judicial review, greatly expanding the role of the federal judiciary.
