Marbury V. Madison: A Constitutional Clash

Marbury v. Madison is regarded as one of the most important decisions in American constitutional law. The case established the principle of judicial review, which allows courts to determine the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government. In 1801, William Marbury, a Federalist Party leader, was appointed as a justice of the peace by outgoing President John Adams. However, the new Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver his commission, as directed by President Thomas Jefferson. Marbury sued Madison in the Supreme Court, requesting a writ of mandamus to compel Madison to deliver the commission. The Court held that Marbury had a legal right to his commission but also ruled that it lacked the authority to issue the writ, as the relevant provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was deemed unconstitutional. This case affirmed the principle that the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature and established a crucial check and balance in the American system of government.

Explore related products

Marbury Vs Madison 1803 Naccount Of The Supreme Court Case Of Marbury Vs Madison Which Established The Constitutional Doctrine Of Judicial Review As Reported In The Philadelphia Aurora 4 February 1803

$32.83

Marbury Vs Madison 1803 Naccount Of The Supreme Court Case Of Marbury Vs Madison Which Established The Constitutional Doctrine Of Judicial Review As Reported In The Philadelphia Aurora 4 February 1803

$53.2

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

$21.95 $29.99

The Changing Constitution: Constitutional Law in the Trump-Era Supreme Court

$36.21 $39.99

Rights Reign Supreme: An Intellectual History of Judicial Review and the Supreme Court

$45.69 $49.95

Judicial Review in an Objective Legal System

$34.38 $45

The right of the courts to determine the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government

The case of Marbury v. Madison established the right of the courts to determine the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government. The decision, written by Chief Justice John Marshall, is considered one of the foundations of US constitutional law. It also established the principle of judicial review, an important addition to the system of checks and balances designed to prevent any one branch of the US government from becoming too powerful.

The case arose from a lawsuit filed by William Marbury, a Federalist Party leader from Maryland, who had been appointed a justice of the peace by outgoing President John Adams in 1801. However, Marbury did not receive his commission before Thomas Jefferson took office as president. Jefferson directed his secretary of state, James Madison, to withhold the commission, as he wanted to reduce the number of justices of the peace. Marbury then petitioned the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus—a type of court order commanding a government official to perform an act required by their official duties—to compel Madison to deliver the commission.

The Court held that Marbury had a legal right to his commission and that Madison's refusal to deliver it was illegal. However, the Court also ruled that it did not have the power to issue a writ of mandamus because the relevant provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which granted the Court the power to issue such writs, was unconstitutional. This was because it expanded the definition of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction beyond what was set forth in the US Constitution.

The Marshall Court's decision in Marbury v. Madison was controversial at the time and remains so today. Several US presidents have disputed the Court's assertion of the judiciary's authority to review executive branch actions. Additionally, there were concerns about a potential conflict of interest, as Marshall had previously served as Adams's secretary of state and had signed Marbury's commission. Despite these controversies, the case is regarded as one of the most important decisions in American constitutional history.

The Supreme Court's power to issue writs of mandamus to public officers

Marbury v. Madison is regarded as one of the most important decisions in American constitutional law. The case established the principle of judicial review, which allows courts to determine the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government. This added an important check on the powers of the Federal Government.

In the case, William Marbury , a Federalist Party leader, sued James Madison, the Secretary of State, to obtain his commission as a justice of the peace. Marbury had been appointed by outgoing President John Adams, but Madison refused to deliver the commission, following the orders of incoming President Thomas Jefferson.

The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled that Marbury had a legal right to his commission and that Madison's refusal to deliver it was illegal. The Court also held that it was typically appropriate for a court to order the government official to deliver the commission. However, in this case, the Court did not order Madison to comply.

The Court examined the Judiciary Act of 1789, which defined the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over cases like Marbury's. It found that the Act had expanded the Court's jurisdiction beyond what was set out in the US Constitution. Specifically, the Court held that the authority given to the Supreme Court by the Judiciary Act of 1789 to issue writs of mandamus to public officers was not warranted by the Constitution. 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.

The Court's decision in Marbury v. Madison confirmed that the Supreme Court did not have the power to issue writs of mandamus in original jurisdiction cases like Marbury's. This was because the relevant provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was inconsistent with the US Constitution. The Court's opinion, written by Chief Justice Marshall, is considered a foundational document of US constitutional law.

The legality of Marbury's commission

Jefferson directed Madison to withhold the commission, and Marbury filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court, asking for a writ of mandamus to compel Madison to deliver it. The 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 carry out. The Court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall, held that Marbury had a legal right to his commission, as all appropriate procedures had been followed: the commission had been properly signed and sealed.

Marshall asserted that the delivery of the commission was merely a custom and not an essential element of the commission itself. He argued that the signature of the President is what warrants the affixing of the great seal to the commission, and the transmission of the commission is a practice directed by convenience rather than law. Therefore, the refusal to deliver the commission was a violation of Marbury's rights, and he was entitled to a remedy.

However, the Court did not order Madison to comply with Marbury's request. Instead, it examined the law that defined the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over cases like Marbury's—Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789—and found that it had expanded the Court's jurisdiction beyond what was originally set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Marshall concluded that the Court did not have the power to issue a writ of mandamus in this case, as the relevant provision of the Judiciary Act was inconsistent with the Constitution.

The decision in Marbury v. Madison established the principle of judicial review, which gave the courts the right to determine the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government. This added a crucial check and balance to the system of government, ensuring that no one branch could become too powerful.

Explore related products

Constitutional Interpretation: Textual Meaning, Original Intent, and Judicial Review

$25.58 $37.99

The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review

$45.51 $48.99

Responsive Judicial Review: Democracy and Dysfunction in the Modern Age (Oxford Comparative Constitutionalism)

$27.99 $130

Judicial Review and Constitutional Politics (New Essays on American Constitutional History)

$9.6 $12

Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review (Harvard Paperbacks)

$27.77 $36

The Rise of Modern Judicial Review: From Judicial Interpretation to JudgeMade Law,

$63 $63

Marshall's conflict of interest

John Marshall, who was the Chief Justice of the United States at the time of the Marbury v. Madison case, had previously served as the acting secretary of state under President John Adams. Marshall had signed Marbury's commission and was responsible for its delivery. This created a potential conflict of interest, and some scholars have questioned whether Marshall should have recused himself from the case.

Marshall's participation in the adjudication of the Marbury case is controversial because he had played a role in the underlying dispute. He was still the acting secretary of state when Adams nominated Marbury and the other "Midnight Judges". As acting secretary of state, Marshall was responsible for delivering the commissions of the new appointees. However, he failed to deliver Marbury's commission before Adams left office and was succeeded by Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson ordered his acting secretary of state, Levi Lincoln, to stop delivering the commissions, preventing the new appointees, including Marbury, from taking their positions. Jefferson assumed that the commissions were void since they were not delivered on time. Marshall's prior involvement in the case as secretary of state created a potential conflict of interest. It raised questions about the appropriateness of his participation in the adjudication of the Marbury case.

Later judicial standards would have called for Marshall's recusal from the case due to his prior involvement. However, at the time, only financial connections to a case led judges to step aside, as Marshall did in suits regarding Virginia lands in which he had a personal interest. The political opponents of Marshall, the Republicans, did not raise the issue of his potential conflict of interest in the Marbury case. This may have been due to their eagerness to criticize him on other matters.

Despite the potential conflict of interest, Marshall's participation in the Marbury case was also influenced by his eagerness to establish judicial review and secure the Supreme Court's primary role in constitutional interpretation. He recognized that the case presented an opportunity to expound on the basic principle of judicial review, which would strengthen the Court's authority in interpreting the Constitution.

The expansion of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction

The case of Marbury v. Madison is considered one of the most important decisions in American constitutional law. It established the principle of judicial review, which allows the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government, ensuring that no one branch becomes too powerful.

In the case, William Marbury , a Federalist Party leader, filed a lawsuit against James Madison, the Secretary of State, for refusing to deliver his commission as a justice of the peace. Marbury argued that he had a legal right to his commission, as it had been properly signed and sealed, and that delivery was merely a formality. The Supreme Court agreed with Marbury and held that Madison's refusal to deliver the commission was illegal.

However, the Court also found that it could not order Madison to comply with a writ of mandamus, a type of court order commanding a government official to perform an official duty, because the relevant provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was inconsistent with the Constitution. This was a significant expansion of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, as it asserted the Court's power to review and interpret the laws passed by Congress and determine their constitutionality.

The Court's decision in Marbury v. Madison established the principle that the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature and that the Court has the final say in interpreting the law. This expansion of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction was controversial at the time, and several subsequent U.S. presidents have disputed it.

The case also had important political implications. By recognising the principle of judicial review, Chief Justice John Marshall was able to secure the Supreme Court's primary role in constitutional interpretation and strengthen the system of checks and balances in the American government. This allowed the Court to prevent the other branches of government from abusing their power and ensured that the Constitution could adapt to meet challenging circumstances.

Frequently asked questions