Marbury v. Madison

The Story: 

John Adams, the 2nd U.S. president, packed the federal judiciary with Federalist judges before leaving office. His goal was to divert the power of the Democratic Republicans, who had beaten the Federalists in the election of 1800. Adams appointed and signed commissions for these justices right before he left. While many judges were appointed, a few of the judges’ commissions remained undelivered. When James Madison, the Secretary of State for the incoming Jefferson administration, saw the unmailed commissions, he chose to withhold them. William Marbury, one of the justices who did not receive his commission but was appointed,  sued Madison for withholding his commission. He had his attorney ask the court for a writ of mandamus, which was a court order that required Madison to give the commission. The main issue for this case was whether the Supreme Court had the legal authority to force Madison to deliver Marbury’s commission. 

The Breakdown: 

Madison, who believed that the Court did not have the power to force him to deliver the commission, declined to appear before the court or to hire an attorney to represent him. Marbury had his attorney advocate for his commission, who argued that because the commission was signed, sealed, and approved by the Senate, Marbury was allowed to become a justice. From this evidence, the attorney concluded that the Court had the authority to enforce the delivery of the commission. 

Besides the issue on both sides, there was complexity surrounding how the Court’s power could be implemented. Even if the Court did issue the writ of mandamus, it did not have the necessary power to truly enforce it against the executive branch. If the court refused to issue the writ, it could look like the court yielded to the power of the executive branch, which could reflect poorly on the Court. Rather than go towards the two negative options, Justice Marshall strategically found a middle ground that expanded the Court’s powers. He used this case to establish the power of judicial review and criticize the Jefferson administration for failing to uphold the law. 

The Unanimous Majority Opinion:

Chief Justice Marshall began by reducing the case to three questions: Whether Marbury has the right to his judicial commission, whether the law provides him a legal remedy, and whether the remedy could be a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court. First, Marshall found that Marbury did have a right to his commission. When the president signed the commission and sealed it, the appointment was complete. He concluded that the, “...transmission of the commission is a practice directed by convenience, but not by law.” The delivery of the commission was just a formality. Second, Marshall also found that Marbury had a right to a legal remedy. He asserted that, “The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.” When the government violates a person’s right, it is the job of the courts to remedy it. The government and its officials are not above the Constitution. So, because the government had wronged Marbury, the government needed to provide the proper remedy. Finally, Marshall was left to answer whether it is the Court’s job to issue the writ of mandamus. Although the Judiciary Act of 1789 had given the court the power of mandamus, Marshall found that this provision went against Article III of the Constitution, which strictly limits the Court’s original jurisdiction. He explained that, “a law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” Because the Constitution, and not legislative laws, is the supreme law of the land, he found the statute that gave the power of mandamus to be unconstitutional. As a result, the Court did not issue the writ. 

The Aftermath: 

While Marshall denied Marbury his win, ultimately, he gave the Supreme Court enduring power. In declaring part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, the Supreme Court firmly established the power of judicial review. Judicial review is how the courts check and balance laws today. At the same time, the decision was strategic, by ruling that the Court lacked jurisdiction, he was able to avoid conflict with the Jefferson administration. Through this, he protected the court's legitimacy while strengthening its power. To conclude, Marbury v. Madison transformed the Court from a relatively weak institution into a powerful interpreter of the Constitution. Every case analyzed on this blog, from Lochner to Kelo to Brandenburg, exists because of the power Marshall established in Marbury. Without judicial review, the Supreme Court may have had no authority to strike down unconstitutional laws at all. 

Bibliography:

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

Britannica. “Marbury v. Madison.”

Federal Judicial Center. “Marbury v. Madison.” Cases That Shaped the Federal Courts.

National Archives. “Marbury v. Madison.” Milestone Documents.

U.S. Marshals Service. “Judiciary Act of 1789.” Historical Reading Room.

Full text links:

Britannica:  https://www.britannica.com/event/Marbury-v-Madison

Federal Judicial Center:  https://www.fjc.gov/history/cases/cases-that-shaped-the-federal-courts/marbury-v-madison

Marbury v. Madison, Justia:  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/

National Archives:  https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/marbury-v-madison

U.S. Marshals Service, Judiciary Act:  https://www.usmarshals.gov/who-we-are/history/historical-reading-room/judiciary-act-of-1789-charter-us-marshals-and-deputies