Marbury V. Madison: Understanding The Constitutional Clause

Marbury v. Madison is a landmark 1803 Supreme Court case that established the power of judicial review for the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts with respect to the Constitution. The case revolved around a dispute between William Marbury and James Madison, the Secretary of State at the time. Marbury had been appointed a justice of the peace by outgoing President John Adams, but Madison refused to deliver the commission. Marbury sued to obtain it, and the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled in his favour, declaring Madison's refusal illegal. This case set a precedent for the principle of judicial review, which gives courts the authority to determine the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government, ensuring a system of checks and balances. The Court's decision also reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution over any other source of law, including Congressional legislation.

Explore related products

Marbury v. Madison: The Origins and Legacy of Judicial Review (Landmark Law Cases and American Society)

$21.95 $29.99

Marbury v. Madison : The Origins and Legacy of Judicial Review

$29.99 $99.99

Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review

$34.99 $37.99

Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803) (50 Most Cited Cases)

$0.99

Focus On: 100 Most Popular Legal History of the United States: Jim Crow Laws, American Revolution, Marbury v. Madison, Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, Articles ... Glass–Steagall Legislation, G.I. Bill, etc.

$0.99

An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100+ Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know

$26 $34.95

The principle of judicial review

The case of Marbury v. Madison established the principle of judicial review, which gives the federal judiciary the power to declare legislation, as well as executive and administrative actions, inconsistent with the US Constitution and therefore null and void. In other words, the courts can determine the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government, the legislative and executive branches. This power is now considered an important addition to the system of "checks and balances", preventing any one branch of the Federal Government from becoming too powerful.

In the case, William Marbury, a Federalist Party leader, had been appointed a justice of the peace by outgoing President John Adams. However, the new Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver his commission. Marbury then sued to obtain it. The Supreme Court held that Madison's refusal to deliver the commission was illegal and that Marbury had a legal right to it.

The Court also ruled that it was normally proper in such situations for a court to order the government official in question to deliver the commission. However, the Court did not order Madison to comply. Instead, it examined the law that defined its jurisdiction over cases like Marbury's—Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Court found that this Act had expanded its jurisdiction beyond what was set out in the US Constitution. As a result, the Court struck down Section 13, declaring that American courts have the power to invalidate laws that violate the Constitution.

Chief Justice John Marshall, who wrote the opinion, reasoned that judicial review is implied in the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the US Constitution. This is because the Supremacy Clause declares that the supreme law of the United States is the Constitution and laws made "in Pursuance thereof". This means that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

The Supreme Court's jurisdiction

The case of Marbury v. Madison established the power of the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government, i.e., the legislative and executive branches. This power is known as judicial review.

In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court held that Madison's refusal to deliver Marbury's commission was illegal. Marbury had been appointed as a justice of the peace by outgoing President John Adams, but the new Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver the commission. Marbury sued to obtain it. The Court held that Marbury had a legal right to his commission and that Madison's withholding of it was "violative of a vested legal right" on Marbury's part.

The Court also examined the Judiciary Act of 1789, which defined the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over cases like Marbury's. The Court found that the Act had expanded the definition of its jurisdiction beyond what was originally set forth in the U.S. Constitution. As a result, the Court struck down Section 13 of the Judiciary Act, which outlined the Court's power to issue writs of mandamus. The Court concluded that American courts have the authority to invalidate laws that violate the Constitution.

The portion of Section 13 that addresses the Court's power to issue writs of mandamus is separated from the clause on appellate jurisdiction by a semicolon, creating ambiguity. The Court interpreted Section 13 to authorize it to exercise original jurisdiction over cases involving disputes over writs of mandamus. This interpretation confirmed that the Supreme Court had proper jurisdiction over Marbury's case and could legally issue the writ of mandamus.

Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison established the principle of judicial review and completed the system of checks and balances in the U.S. government. The case ensured that the judiciary remained a coequal branch of government, alongside the legislative and executive branches. Marshall reasoned that judicial review is implied in the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, which declares that the supreme law is the Constitution and laws made "in Pursuance thereof".

Writs of mandamus

The case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is significant in United States legal history, as it established the power of judicial review for the Supreme Court and lower federal courts with respect to the Constitution. This case confirmed the principle of checks and balances, ensuring no branch of the Federal Government could become too powerful.

In the case, the Supreme Court held that James Madison's refusal to deliver William Marbury's commission as justice of the peace was illegal. Marbury had been appointed by outgoing President John Adams, but the new Secretary of State, Madison, refused to deliver the commission. Marbury sued to obtain it, and the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled in his favour, stating that Madison's withholding of the commission was "violative of a vested legal right".

The Court then turned to the question of remedy. It was decided that a writ of mandamus was the proper course of action. A writ of mandamus is a type of court order that commands a government official to perform an act that their official duties legally require them to perform. In this case, the writ would have compelled Madison to deliver Marbury's commission.

However, the Court grappled with the issue of whether it had the authority to issue such a writ to Madison, who was part of the executive branch of the government. Marshall identified a conflict between the Judiciary Act of 1789 and the Constitution regarding the Court's original jurisdiction. Ultimately, the Court agreed that it had original jurisdiction in this case and could issue the writ of mandamus.

Despite the Court's ruling, Marbury never received his appointment as the commission was not delivered before Adams left office. The decision, however, had far-reaching implications for the country's legal system and the balance of power between the branches of government.

Explore related products

Constitutional Law: Cases, Comments, and Questions (American Casebook Series)

$300

Great Cases in Constitutional Law

$44 $47

Leading Constitutional Cases on Criminal Justice, 2025 (University Casebook Series)

$192

Constitutional Law, Cases and Materials (University Casebook Series)

$305

Leading Cases in Constitutional Law, A Compact Casebook for a Short Course, 2024 (American Casebook Series)

$203

Essential Supreme Court Decisions: Summaries of Leading Cases in U.S. Constitutional Law

$32.26 $42

The Supremacy Clause

In the case of Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review, which is now an important part of the system of "checks and balances". This principle prevents any one branch of the US Federal Government from becoming too powerful.

In this case, Marshall reasoned that judicial review is implied in the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the US Constitution. This is because the Supremacy Clause declares that the supreme law of the United States is the Constitution and laws made "in pursuance thereof".

Marshall also ruled that a writ of mandamus was the proper way to seek a remedy but questioned whether the Supreme Court could issue it. He identified a conflict between the Judiciary Act of 1789 and the Constitution, with each providing different parameters for the Court's original jurisdiction. Marshall rejected Marbury's argument that the Constitution merely served as a foundation for Congress to build upon with later laws. Instead, he found that the Constitution trumped any laws and that Congress did not have the power to modify it through regular legislation.

In explaining why the Constitution was supreme to all laws, Marshall noted that the Supremacy Clause places the Constitution before the laws and that judges must take an oath to uphold it. As a result, he found that the section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over these matters was invalid because it violated the Constitution.

Checks and balances

Marbury v. Madison is a significant case in American history, as it established the power of judicial review for the Supreme Court and lower federal courts. This case confirmed that the judiciary was a coequal branch of government, alongside the legislative and executive branches.

The case involved a dispute between William Marbury and James Madison, the Secretary of State at the time. Marbury had been appointed a justice of the peace by outgoing President John Adams, but Madison, of the incoming Jefferson administration, refused to deliver the commission. Marbury sued to obtain it, and the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled in his favour, stating that Madison's refusal was illegal.

The Court's opinion, written by Marshall, established the principle of judicial review, which became an important addition to the system of checks and balances. Marshall reasoned that judicial review was implied in the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, which declares that the Constitution and laws made "in pursuance thereof" are the supreme law of the United States. He concluded that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void and that all departments, including the courts, are bound by it.

The decision in Marbury v. Madison gave the courts the authority to determine the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government, ensuring that no single branch becomes too powerful. This power allows the judiciary to check the actions of Congress and the President, thus maintaining a balance of power and safeguarding against the abuse of power.

The case of Marbury v. Madison, therefore, had a profound impact on the American system of government, strengthening the federal judiciary and contributing to the system of checks and balances designed to prevent the concentration of power in any one branch.

Frequently asked questions