Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Marbury v. Madison provided the Supreme Court with the power to decide whether a law can be valid in light of the wording of the Constitution.
The second president, John Adams, was a member of the Federalist Party. The incoming president, Thomas Jefferson, was Republican. Trying to retain some power for the Federalists, Congress, which had a Federalist majority, passed legislation that created new judge postings and called for appointing dozens of new Justices of the Peace. Collectively these appointees were termed the "midnight Judges."
In order to complete the new appointments, sealed commissions (warrants of authorization) had to be delivered to the people receiving the new judgeships. In the harried turnover of power to the incoming administration, the delivery of the commissions was overlooked.
When Jefferson took office he ordered his Secretary of State, James Madison, to not deliver the commissions. William Marbury was one of the midnight judges. He petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of Mandamus (an order requiring a government official to perform his or her duty). If successful Marbury and the other midnight judges would receive the new appointment or keep their current appointment if it had already started.
An interesting twist is that John Marshall, the Supreme Court Chief Justice, was himself a midnight judge having received his appointment just months ago. A further oddity is that Marshall, while Adams was in office, was both the Chief Justice and the Secretary of State. As the Secretary of State it was his responsibility to have delivered the commissions, even to himself!
Marshall and the other four Supreme Court justices heard the case. The court was unanimous in its decision in favor of Marbury. However the decision had a bigger implication that became a cornerstone of the power of the Supreme Court. There were distinct opinions in the decision. The first three addressed the direct tenets of the case: One, Marbury did indeed have the right to serve as a Justice of the Peace. This became valid when the Senate approved the appointment and President Adams signed the commission. The lack of delivery did not remove its validity. Two, Marshall had been in violation of his duties as Secretary of State for not delivering the commissions. Three, a writ of Mandamus was confirmed as the proper approach to having an official perform required duties.
The remainder of the decision dealt with a bigger issue of the Supreme Court's role itself. A key point was whether the Supreme Court could even be involved in Marbury's case. Article III of the Constitution specifies two types of jurisdiction: original and appellate. Original jurisdiction implies a court hears a case from its inception. Appellate jurisdiction occurs when a court reviews a decision made by a lower court - an "appeal" - to correct a wrong decision. Article III states the Supreme Court can only be involved with original jurisdiction for cases "affecting ambassadors" and with cases in which a state is named as a party in the case.
William Marbury was neither an ambassador nor a state. To get around this roadblock, Marbury asked the court to follow the Judiciary Act of 1789 - which authorized all federal courts to issue writs in all cases, not a subset of them. The Marshall court then had to contend with whether the Judiciary Act of 1789 was valid since it conflicted with the Constitution. The decision was no; the court ruled that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unenforceable. But this led to the question of whether the Supreme Court had the authority to enforce this decision it had just made. It was the answer to this question that made Marbury v. Madison the landmark case that it is.
The Marshall court ruled that it is in the power of the judicial branch to decide what the law is. If a law conflicts with the Constitution, the court has the power to decide whether the law is permissible. In deciding a case, if both a law and the Constitution are keystones of the case, the court decides which to follow. In a nutshell, the courts decide if a law is applicable in a case and can decide to nullify the law, provided it is in the best interest of preserving the Constitution. This is taken for granted in today's world. In 1803 when this was concluded, the view was that the court asserted that the judicial branch has more power of the law than either the legislative branch or the executive branch.
Marbury v. Madison is complex to follow in ways and is a subject of debate even to present day. Yet it has stood up to criticism and has been instrumental in how our modern government operates.
Read more:
The second president, John Adams, was a member of the Federalist Party. The incoming president, Thomas Jefferson, was Republican. Trying to retain some power for the Federalists, Congress, which had a Federalist majority, passed legislation that created new judge postings and called for appointing dozens of new Justices of the Peace. Collectively these appointees were termed the "midnight Judges."
In order to complete the new appointments, sealed commissions (warrants of authorization) had to be delivered to the people receiving the new judgeships. In the harried turnover of power to the incoming administration, the delivery of the commissions was overlooked.
When Jefferson took office he ordered his Secretary of State, James Madison, to not deliver the commissions. William Marbury was one of the midnight judges. He petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of Mandamus (an order requiring a government official to perform his or her duty). If successful Marbury and the other midnight judges would receive the new appointment or keep their current appointment if it had already started.
An interesting twist is that John Marshall, the Supreme Court Chief Justice, was himself a midnight judge having received his appointment just months ago. A further oddity is that Marshall, while Adams was in office, was both the Chief Justice and the Secretary of State. As the Secretary of State it was his responsibility to have delivered the commissions, even to himself!
Marshall and the other four Supreme Court justices heard the case. The court was unanimous in its decision in favor of Marbury. However the decision had a bigger implication that became a cornerstone of the power of the Supreme Court. There were distinct opinions in the decision. The first three addressed the direct tenets of the case: One, Marbury did indeed have the right to serve as a Justice of the Peace. This became valid when the Senate approved the appointment and President Adams signed the commission. The lack of delivery did not remove its validity. Two, Marshall had been in violation of his duties as Secretary of State for not delivering the commissions. Three, a writ of Mandamus was confirmed as the proper approach to having an official perform required duties.
The remainder of the decision dealt with a bigger issue of the Supreme Court's role itself. A key point was whether the Supreme Court could even be involved in Marbury's case. Article III of the Constitution specifies two types of jurisdiction: original and appellate. Original jurisdiction implies a court hears a case from its inception. Appellate jurisdiction occurs when a court reviews a decision made by a lower court - an "appeal" - to correct a wrong decision. Article III states the Supreme Court can only be involved with original jurisdiction for cases "affecting ambassadors" and with cases in which a state is named as a party in the case.
William Marbury was neither an ambassador nor a state. To get around this roadblock, Marbury asked the court to follow the Judiciary Act of 1789 - which authorized all federal courts to issue writs in all cases, not a subset of them. The Marshall court then had to contend with whether the Judiciary Act of 1789 was valid since it conflicted with the Constitution. The decision was no; the court ruled that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unenforceable. But this led to the question of whether the Supreme Court had the authority to enforce this decision it had just made. It was the answer to this question that made Marbury v. Madison the landmark case that it is.
The Marshall court ruled that it is in the power of the judicial branch to decide what the law is. If a law conflicts with the Constitution, the court has the power to decide whether the law is permissible. In deciding a case, if both a law and the Constitution are keystones of the case, the court decides which to follow. In a nutshell, the courts decide if a law is applicable in a case and can decide to nullify the law, provided it is in the best interest of preserving the Constitution. This is taken for granted in today's world. In 1803 when this was concluded, the view was that the court asserted that the judicial branch has more power of the law than either the legislative branch or the executive branch.
Marbury v. Madison is complex to follow in ways and is a subject of debate even to present day. Yet it has stood up to criticism and has been instrumental in how our modern government operates.
Read more: