Marbury Vs Madison Case Brief Summary
Marbury v. Madison
5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
Facts
A judicial appointment and writ of mandamus case. After the election of 1800 resulted in the House electing anti-federalist Thomas Jefferson president, the Federalists passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which created new circuit courts and district courts, in addition to those that existed from the Judiciary Act of 1789, and the Organic Act of 1801, which permitted President Adams to appoint forty-two justices of the peace for the District of Columbia. Outgoing Secretary of State John Marshall failed to deliver some of the commissions issued by President Adams during the presidential transition. Incoming President Jefferson, instructed his Secretary of State James Madison to refuse to the …show more content…
deliver these commissions. William Marbury, one of the three justices whose commissions were denied by President Jefferson administration, petitioned directly to the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus, as Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 permits the Court to issue writs of mandamus to anyone holding federal office. Marbury is asking the court to order Madison to deliver his commission.
Legal Questions
1. Does Marbury have a right to the commission?
2. If Marbury has this right, it has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?
3. If they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing from the Court?
Holding
Yes, Yes, No.
4-0 in favor of Madison. Cushing and Moore did not participate. Marshall wrote the unanimous opinion.
Reasoning
1. In writing the unanimous opinion, we addressed the first issue of whether Marbury is entitled to his commission by determining whether he has been appointed to the office. Since Marbury’s commission was signed by President Adams and sealed by the secretary of state he was appointed to the position. To withhold his commission is not only unwarranted by law but violative of his legal rights. Having this legal title to the office, Marbury has a right to the commission.
2. The act to establish the judicial courts of the U.S. allows this Court to issue writs of mandamus to persons holding office under the authority of the United States. Allowing this court to issue these writs shows that this court can exercise its appellate jurisdiction.
3. Additionally, it is the duty and responsibility of the judicial department to say what the law is. If a law is in opposition to the constitution the court must decide the case conforming exclusively either to the law or to the constitution.
4. A law that conflicts with the constitution should be held to be unconstitutional and stuck down.
Concurrent/Dissents
There were no concurrences or dissents in this case.
Analysis
This wise and diplomatic decision set forth the groundbreaking precedent allowing the Court to have the power of judicial review. While nowhere in the Constitution is this power explicitly stated, Justice Marshall was able to avoid future clashes with President Jefferson by denying Marbury his commission. At the same time, Marshall ruling that the Court has the power of judicial review, made sure Jefferson knew the Court would play a vital role in future governing.
What is interesting to note it that Justice Marshall was still serving as secretary of state at the time this case was filed. Should Marshall have recused himself from this case because his failing to deliver Marbury’s commission led to the petition in this case? But, if Justice Marshall indeed decided to recuse himself from the case would the Supreme Court ever have been vested with the power of judicial review, or would this power have arisen from future cases regardless?
5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
Facts
A judicial appointment and writ of mandamus case. After the election of 1800 resulted in the House electing anti-federalist Thomas Jefferson president, the Federalists passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which created new circuit courts and district courts, in addition to those that existed from the Judiciary Act of 1789, and the Organic Act of 1801, which permitted President Adams to appoint forty-two justices of the peace for the District of Columbia. Outgoing Secretary of State John Marshall failed to deliver some of the commissions issued by President Adams during the presidential transition. Incoming President Jefferson, instructed his Secretary of State James Madison to refuse to the …show more content…
deliver these commissions. William Marbury, one of the three justices whose commissions were denied by President Jefferson administration, petitioned directly to the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus, as Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 permits the Court to issue writs of mandamus to anyone holding federal office. Marbury is asking the court to order Madison to deliver his commission.
Legal Questions
1. Does Marbury have a right to the commission?
2. If Marbury has this right, it has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?
3. If they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing from the Court?
Holding
Yes, Yes, No.
4-0 in favor of Madison. Cushing and Moore did not participate. Marshall wrote the unanimous opinion.
Reasoning
1. In writing the unanimous opinion, we addressed the first issue of whether Marbury is entitled to his commission by determining whether he has been appointed to the office. Since Marbury’s commission was signed by President Adams and sealed by the secretary of state he was appointed to the position. To withhold his commission is not only unwarranted by law but violative of his legal rights. Having this legal title to the office, Marbury has a right to the commission.
2. The act to establish the judicial courts of the U.S. allows this Court to issue writs of mandamus to persons holding office under the authority of the United States. Allowing this court to issue these writs shows that this court can exercise its appellate jurisdiction.
3. Additionally, it is the duty and responsibility of the judicial department to say what the law is. If a law is in opposition to the constitution the court must decide the case conforming exclusively either to the law or to the constitution.
4. A law that conflicts with the constitution should be held to be unconstitutional and stuck down.
Concurrent/Dissents
There were no concurrences or dissents in this case.
Analysis
This wise and diplomatic decision set forth the groundbreaking precedent allowing the Court to have the power of judicial review. While nowhere in the Constitution is this power explicitly stated, Justice Marshall was able to avoid future clashes with President Jefferson by denying Marbury his commission. At the same time, Marshall ruling that the Court has the power of judicial review, made sure Jefferson knew the Court would play a vital role in future governing.
What is interesting to note it that Justice Marshall was still serving as secretary of state at the time this case was filed. Should Marshall have recused himself from this case because his failing to deliver Marbury’s commission led to the petition in this case? But, if Justice Marshall indeed decided to recuse himself from the case would the Supreme Court ever have been vested with the power of judicial review, or would this power have arisen from future cases regardless?