Judicial Review: 1803 Chief Justice John Marshall

In the year 1803 the case of Marbury v. Madison was brought before the Supreme Court in order to address the issue of William Marbury’s appointment as federal circuit judge. This created a unique and complex challenge for the Supreme Court of the time because they were operating under no legal precedent, which meant that they had no prior cases to reference to reach a ruling. The issue came to a head after the Judiciary Act of 1801 allowed for President John Adams to appoint sixteen new circuit judges one of them being William Marbury. However, before Secretary of State Marshall ran out of time before he was able to deliver Marbury’s appointment. When the new Secretary of State James Madison entered office, he refused to deliver Marbury’s appointment, claiming that it was too late. Outraged, Marbury filed a writ of mandamus against Madison in order to force him to complete the specified action, which in this case was to deliver the commission. However, through complex political maneuvering the Judiciary Act of 1802, was enacted which repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801 reestablishing the Judiciary Act of 1789 and postponing the case until 1803. One of the key issues in the case was then if William Marbury was entitled to a remedy for the deprivation of his right to his commission. Chief Justice John Marshall with a narrow and technical ruling then determined that since President Adams with his signature had completed Marbury’s commission of appointment he was entitled to the

In the decision regarding Gibbons v. Ogden, Marshall ruled that a state can't grant a monopoly when it is related to interstate commerce. This gave supremacy to the national government in issues regarding interstate commerce. Through his interpretation of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, John Marshall successfully increased the power of the national government.

A 3rd Article of the Constitution talks about the Judicial Branch. It says that there will be a court and then a “supreme” court that will make many decisions. It later says what kind of cases the federal government gets to hear. The framers wrote detailed descriptions for this Article so that the Judicial system new what cases they got and what cases the federal government got. Without the description, the federal government could possibly override the Supreme Court and get all of the cases. The framers also saw that this Article would need provisions because new cases would arise and new courts would come around.

Marshall complained that the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land” and that the Supreme Court ultimately has the final say so when it comes to evaluating the meaning of the Constitution. Marshall states, “ lt is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” To present Marshall’s initial plea at hand, Marshall argues that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional. In Marshall 's perspective, Congress could not present the Supreme Court with the power to issue an order granting Marbury his commission. Only the Constitution could do so, and the document said nothing about the Supreme Court having the power to issue such an order. Thus, the Supreme Court could not force Jefferson and Madison to appoint Marbury, because it did not have the power to do so.

The case of Marbury vs. Madison established judicial review of acts of Congress to determine if they are unconstitutional. It was so epochal because had it not established judicial review, Congress would be free to pass laws that are completely unconstitutional and a violation of the rights set in place by the first ten amendments. It brought order out of the chaos that occurred when Adams appointed the Midnight Judges. Over the long term, it has affected many congressional bills that if passed, would not be constitutional.

When Chief Justice Marshall first established the important principle of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison, his goal was to give the judicial branch a safeguard by expanding the Court’s power and legitimizing the weakest branch of

The establishment of one of the most influential powers of the Supreme Court--the power of judicial review-- and the development of the judicial branch can be attributed to Marshall’s insightful interpretation of the Constitution ("The Marshall Court”).

The decision really helped decide the border between the constitutionally executive and judicial branches of the American government. The case had resulted into a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury. Marbury also petitioned the Supreme Court to strengthen the new Secretary of State in order to deliver the documents. The Court had found that Madison's refusal to deliver the agency was both illegal and fixable. The petition later on in the year was refused.

In the contentious court case of McCulloch v. Maryland, Hamilton stressed that if Congress was given specific power by the Constitution, it was therefore constitutional. Chapter 2, Page 61

To begin with, the Marshall Era authenticated the Supreme Court’s position in the federal government through Marbury v. Madison. The case was pursued by William Marbury; a judge appointed by Adams on one of the last days of his presidency. Marbury along with several other judges were appointed to the Supreme Court by Adams, however their new positions were never finalized. When Madison came into office, he would not allow these judges to report to the positions that Adams appointed them to because they were never official. Marshall decided that the power of the Supreme Court was not enough to force Madison to allow the judges to serve. Through this very famous supreme court case, John Marshall created judicial review. Judicial review states that the Supreme Court is allowed

A landmark case in United States Law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States,

The questions it raised were: Is Marbury entitled to the commission? Can Congress expand the power of the Supreme Court beyond what is stated in the Constitution? Does the Supreme Court have the power to issue writs of mandamus? Can the Supreme Court review acts of Congress and determine whether or not they are unconstitutional?

The Court’s final decision was unanimous and it denied Marbury’s request for the writ of mandamus. Marbury never received his appointment. This case is significant because it established the concept of judicial review. The Constitution does not specifically grant the judiciary this power. Judicial review allows federal courts to review laws and determine if they are constitutional or not. This gives the judiciary the power to void any laws that are found to violate any part of the Constitution. Therefore, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that gave the federal courts the authority to hear mandamus cases was unconstitutional. Ironically, Chief Justice Marshall is the person who was the Secretary of State under Adams that sealed Marbury’s appointment.

5. No. The Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus.

The Supreme Court, under John Marshall, defined itself with its historic 1803 decision in the case of Marbury v. Madison. In this single landmark case, the Supreme Court established its power to interpret the U.S. Constitution and to determine the constitutionality of laws passed by congress and the state legislatures. John Marshall went on to serve as Chief Justice for a record 34 years, along with several Associate Justices who served for well over 20 years. During his time on the bench, Marshall succeeded in molding the federal judicial system into what many, as I do, consider to be today's most powerful branch of government.