Zachary FigueroaProfessor Scott WallerCourts & Public Policy20 September 2012

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).

Facts of the Case

In an effort to preserve Federalist interpretation of the Constitution reinforced during the Presidency of John Adams, Congress created several new judicial posts before the Jefferson Administration took office in 1801. The commissions having been signed and approved by President John Adams were sent out for delivery by then current Secretary of State John Marshall. After not receiving the aforementioned commission, newly inaugurated President Thomas Jefferson refused to honor the commissions citing that delivery had to have taken place prior to his taking office. Marbury brought suit to the Supreme Court, applying for a writ of mandamus requiting that newly appointed Secretary of State, James Madison, deliver the commission. The basis for his argument was founded in section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to hear his case given the petition for a writ of mandamus. Recently, having taken his position as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall uses Marbury’s situation to advantageously establish the Court’s power in regard judicial review and the fundamental rights of individuals, which are protected by the Constitution by way of the Court.

The Law

The Constitution of the United States, Article III. The Judiciary Act of 1789, § 13.

Legal Questions

1. Does Marbury have the right to the commission? Yes.2. Under the constitution is Marbury allowed a remedy for being refused the commission? Yes. 3. Does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus? No. 4. Is the Supreme Court given the authority to review acts of Congress in order to determine their constitutionality,

voiding them if necessary? Yes. 5. Is Congress able to expand the Court’s established jurisdiction beyond what is specified in Article III of the

Constitution? No.

Opinion of the Court

Marshall swiftly upholds that Marbury has the right to the commission. Failure to deliver the applied commission is to be seen as a violation of a vested legal right, which Marshall believes is possessed by every individual under the Constitution. Given the violation, it is thereby assumed and subsequently upheld that Marbury must be granted a remedy. Throughout the opinion, Marshall essentially critiques the Judiciary Act of 1789 and questions whether Marbury’s application for a writ of mandamus was the proper means by which to seek remedy for the commission. The Chief Justice upheld that under the Act the Supreme Court does have original jurisdiction over this particular case because it directly affects a public officer. However, through similar legal reasoning Marshall affirms that Congress does not possess the right to modify the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, which is effectually what the Judiciary Act accomplished. Essentially, the Act and the Constitution conflict each other. Marshall upheld the notion that the Constitution supersedes the laws of the United States, affirming the Supremacy Clause. Furthermore, it was concluded that based on the preceding reasoning the Court lacked the jurisdiction because section 13 of the Act was deemed unconstitutional for authorizing the Court to issue the writ of mandamus, thus invalidating Marbury’s request.

Evaluation

This case is one of the first steps toward establishing the tradition and influence of judicial review in the American judicial system. Also, it solidifies the power that the judicial branch has in our government, and the power it does not. As an interpreter of the Constitution, it is apparent that the Court possesses the power to reject or supersede any Act of Congress. The fear is that this type of power allows the Court to essentially make decisions based on a small group’s interpretation of the Constitution, which seems equally unconstitutional as allowing Congress to pass acts that conflict with it. This shows the delicate balance of power and how fragile and often vague the Constitution can be. Marshall takes this opportunity to rein back the power of the Court and reject the added power given him by Congress. Here he confirms that the Court is limited in its power, that it cannot be given more power, and that it possesses an influential place in this democracy to check constitutional discrepancy.