Marbury V. Madison (D) Case Brief

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 However, through complex political maneuvering the Judiciary Act of 1802, was enacted which repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801 reestablishing the Judiciary Act of 1789 and postponing the case until 1803.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 court case of Marbury v Madison from 1803, it is apparent that justice does not prevail. This case was brought to court because William Marbury was denied his rightful spot to a justice of the peace position in the District of Colombia. This spot and commissions were signed by the authority figure, President Adams and sealed by the acting Secretary of State at the time, John Marshall. Although both of these actions were taken, the signatures were not delivered before the expiration of Adams’s term as president.

The overall influence of the Supreme Court under John Marshall can be understood through the five main court cases over which he presided; Marbury v. Madison (1803), Fletcher v. Peck (1810), Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), and Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). The first significant case Marshall was faced with was Marbury v. Madison in 1803. In the last few days of his presidency, John Adams appointed members of the Federalist Party to the new offices he created within the judicial branch. When Thomas Jefferson took office he told James Madison, his secretary of state, not to deliver the unsent commissions to some of the “midnight appointments”, one of who was William Marbury. He appealed to the Supreme Court, asking for a court order that would require Madison to send out the commission, which was part of his job. The Judiciary Act of 1789 supported Marbury’s demands because it authorized the Supreme Court to order

The Constitution pays a massive role in court decisions both in the federal and state cases. If the State Supreme Court cannot come to a decision on a case, the case will be turned over to the Supreme Court who has the final authority in interpreting the meaning of the Constitution in any case. The courts also have the power of judicial review—to declare a law unconstitutional. Due to the decision of Chief Justice John Marshall the Supreme Court has this power from the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1801. The case Marbury v. Madison took place during the election of 1800 when Thomas Jefferson defeated President John Adams, but the new administration did not take office until March of 1801. When the new administration took office James Madison (Secretary of State) discovered that some commissions were not delivered. One of the people whose commission had not been received

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.

In this case, Chief Justice Roberts determines the role of the Court in his opinion. Roberts argues that the point of the Court is not to say whether a law is good or bad, if the people do not like the bill, it is their fault. Roberts says, “the responsibility of this Court is to enforce the limits on federal power by striking down the acts of Congress that transgress those limits” (Roberts, pg 6). He also says, “we must determine whether the Constitution grants Congress powers it now asserts, but which many States and individuals believe it does not possess” (Roberts, pg 2). To do so, the Court must examine the limits on the Government’s power and their own limited role in “policing those boundaries” (2). In this case, Roberts says the Court must uphold its constitutionality and the fundamental will of the people.

The parties are William Marbury and James Madison. William Marbury was commissioned by president Adams as Justice of the Peace, along with many others, on the last day of office. The commission had to be delivered to William Marbury on the same day by John Marshall, the Secretary of State, but that did not happen. The following day Thomas Jefferson, who was from the opposing party, became president and he appointed a new Secretary of State, James Madison. President Jefferson declared the commissions void and they were not delivered to the persons in question including William Marbury, who therefore was not appointed Justice of the Peace as he was promised. William Marbury went to the Supreme Court to ask for a writ of mandamus in order to force the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver the commissions. On 24 February 1803 Chief Justice John Marshall, former Secretary of State during president Adams’ term of office, wrote the Court’s decision.

Marbury, one of the “midnight judges” of 1801, was named a justice of peace for the District of Columbia, but he soon learned that his commission was being put off by James Madison. So, he sued. Marshall realized that the executive branch, completely controlled by Jeffersonians, could easily reject his ruling for his Federalist friend and lessen the power of the Judicial branch at the same time. He dismissed Marbury’s case, but also said that the basis of Marbury’s argument –the Judiciary Act of 1789 –was unconstitutional, thus establishing the establishing the principle of judiciary review, the principle by which courts can declare acts of either the executive branch or the legislative branch

The court declared Section 13 unconstitutional. This marked the first time the United States Supreme Court declared a federal law unconstitutional. It established the supremacy of the Constitution over laws passed by congress and the right of the court to review the Constitutionality of legislation” (Kutler, 193). “Marshall stated the powers of the legislature are defined and limited…It is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. The Constitution was thus established as a legal document subject to interpretation only by the courts” (U.S. Law, 883).

Established in 1789, the Supreme Court was created to interpret the meaning of the Constitution and to use that interpretation to declare any actions of the Legislative or Executive Branches unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court was capable of also acquiring more functions as evidence of the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). The case dealt with President John Adams appointing sixteen new circuit court justices for the District of Colombia. Adams appointed these justices so that his political party would have more justices than the rival party. Problematically, the appointment letters were not delivered by the end of his term. By that basis, President Thomas Jefferson annulled the appointments because he retained the right to appoint the justices during his time of jurisdiction. Consequently, this aggravated the appointed justice and therefore one of the justices named William Marbury filed a case in the Supreme Court over the commissions that they were promised (Goldstone). The Court ruled that Marbury did have a right to commission and also with it made a statement that enacted the doctrine of Judicial Review. This meant that the court had the "right to review, and possibly nullify, laws and governmental acts that violate the constitution. Judicial Review is a means of assuring that politicians and various other leaders adhere to the constitution and do not use powers granted to them by

Next, since the answer is yes, does the United States grant Marbury a remedy? Yes, William Marbury was rightfully commissioned to justice of the peace, but his commission was not sent. Marbury’s rights were violated so by law the United States must grant Marbury a remedy.

Although Marbury was indeed entitled to it, he was denied the commission because Congress can’t expand the power of the Supreme Court so the Supreme Court does not have the authority to issue writs of mandamus. Also, Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with Article III Section 2 of the Constitution so therefore it was void.

As the former mentioned document does not forbid the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus but simply does not state it, I do not feel like the Judiciary Act of 1789 is in conflict with the Constitution. The Constitution is not capable of including every eventuality there is, therefore declaring every law not mentioned in the Constitution as unconstitutional would restrict the actions of the legislative and executive immensely. Instead, declaring acts as unconstitutional should be limited to laws or actions directly interfering with it. I do think judicial review is an important tool in the modern system of checks and balances and plays a significant role in keeping different branches from gaining too much power. It is, therefore, necessary to

The Court found that Congress does not have the authority to expand the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what is specifically given it in Article III. The last question centers on whether the Supreme Court as the original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus. The Court decided that it did not have this jurisdiction. In order to issue a writ of mandamus, the Court may only exercise appellate jurisdiction in an existing case.

The Constitution states that “the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.” If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the Legislature to apportion the judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, this section is mere surplusage and is entirely without meaning. If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and original jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction made in the Constitution, is form without substance.