Marbury v Madison (1803)

Case name:

Marbury v Madison (1803)

Citation:

5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803)

Court name:

U.S. Supreme Court

Bench:

Chief Justice:

John Marshall

Associate Justices:

William Paterson, Samuel Chase, Bushrod Washington, William Cushing and Alfred Moore

Bench Type:

Constitutional Bench

Date of Judgment:

24 February 1803

Parties to the case:

Claimant (Petitioner):

William Marbury

Respondent:

James Madison, Secretary of State

Facts of the case:

John Adams had been defeated by Thomas Jefferson in United States (US) presidential election of 1800. However, problem was that John Adams who was the leader of outgoing government (Federalist party) with the help of Congress passed Judiciary Act 0f 1801. This Act increased the number of judges, new courts were created and president was given more power over appointment of judges. Nonetheless, this act was seen as an attempt by Adams and his party members to frustrate Democratic-Republican party government of Thomas Jefferson as control over judiciary through appointment of judges by Adams and his party members could make it difficult for Jefferson to run his government autonomously. Moreover, the vital background aspect of this case was that judges appointed were approved by the Senate but their appointment would not have been valid until Secretary of State gives them their commissions.

William Marbury was part of Federalist party who was not given his commission before coming into office as he was appointed as Justice of Peace in District of Columbia. Therefore, Marbury made a petition to the Supreme court in order to force the new Secretary of State who was James Madison to give him the documents relating to commission. Marbury petitioned with three other appointees in a similar situation as him.

Legal Issues (Questions of law) Raised:

1. Is there any right bestowed upon petitioners to receive commissions?
2. Are petitioners allowed to sue for their commissions in court as per existing remedies in law?
3. Is there any power given to the Supreme court with regard to providing an order for delivery of commissions to petitioners (writ of mandamus)?

Legal arguments given by the parties:

Petitioner (Mr. Marbury):

• Attorney of Mr. Marbury argued that Mr. Madison was not fulfilling his responsibility properly as a public official as commission was not given punctually. Therefore, US Supreme court should pass a writ of mandamus in order to force Madison to deliver the commission.
• Attorney also argued that court had the power to issue writ of mandamus as per Judiciary Act of 1789
• Lastly, he also expressed that, proper procedures were followed while signing and sealing commission of Marbury so his appointment as Justice of peace was legal

Respondent (James Madison):

• Madison did not appear during the proceedings of US Supreme Court in this case while his attorney presented some arguments in front of the court. First of all, it was argued that judiciary has no authority to compensate a breach of legal right committed by Executives or legislature.
• Moreover, it was also argued that commission has no value until its delivery has been done due to which Marbury did not have any right to get the commission.
• Lastly, Attorney of Madison also argued that it is not under US Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to order Executives to deliver the commission.

Final decision of the case:

John Marhsall, Chief Justice of US Supreme Court at that time, was responsible for writing unanimous opinion of the court. John Marshall was in agreement with the first two legal questions mentioned above as the court pointed out that when the commission has been signed then Marbury would be considered as an appointed judge. The court determined that delivery of commission was just a formal procedure and James Madison must perform this procedure. Nonetheless, the court knew that it had the authority to issue writ of Mandamus as bestowed upon by section 13 of Judiciary Act 1789 but John Marshall agreed that this writ would be an unconstitutional act done by the court as this writ would exceed jurisdiction of the court under Article III section 2 of US constitution.

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as US Supreme Court did not order Madison to deliver commission to Marbury as this would be unconstitutional. Chief Justice Marshall also stated that “A law repugnant to the constitution is void.”

Legal reasoning:

First of all, we are going to discuss the legal reasoning behind decision with regard to first legal question. The right to judicial commission was originated through Circuit Court Act of 1801 related to District of Columbia. Section 11 of this Act provided that Justices of Peace should be appointed by President for a time frame of five years. Marbury was nominated as Justice of Peace by Adams (President of US at that time) but Marbury was not given any commission. Section 3 mentioned in Article II of US constitution was related to commission of US government officers. It gave the Secretary of State the responsibility to keep seal of US which will be used to record seal of civil commissions of US nominated by President. Moreover, Section 2 of Article II of US constitution was related to President’s authority to nominate persons to public ministry of US government which involved those who are not listed in the Constitution.

Nonetheless, the issue faced by the Court was regarding Section 2 and 3 of Article II of US constitution as to whether it could be amended or not. The court was of the view that if President has followed all rules while doing an act then no further proof is required for that act. The President only has to sign the commission and a person is only nominated after Senate has approved the appointment of that person after which Secretary is responsible to give the commission to the relevant individual. This responsibility is preserved under law and is not in accordance with President’s will. Moreover, the US Supreme Court bench identified that commission has date and salary of the officer embedded into it and this file of commission cannot be used as an acceptance of a post. Therefore, with regards to the first legal question court concluded that commission was signed by the President and an officer was appointed and this was a complete transaction. This means that denying the grant of commission would be considered as breach of legal rights of Marbury. Therefore, court was in agreement with first legal question.

Secondly, we will take into account the legal reasoning behind the decision with regard to second legal question. The US Supreme Court bench pointed out that a fundamental aspect of freedom is to ask for a lawful remedy when there has been any breach of law. Court highlighted a comment in Volume three of Blackstone in which two cases were stated which gave remedy through a simple procedure of law. For instance, in this commentary it was said that there is a general rule that whenever a legal right has been infringed upon, a legal remedy is there to rectify it. Moreover, court also gave an example of a procedure of Great Britain where king can also be sued in court and king then has to comply with court’s decree and he never fails to do so. In the US, if law has not listed any remedy for violation of legal rights, then law will lose its value. Therefore, US Supreme court has to identify ways to give the victim party legal benefits. The court expressed that US constitution did give authority to the President which includes authorisation by him to nominate specific officers. The acts performed by these officers are equivalent to the acts performed by the President. In the case of Marbury, the authority given to appoint any official in the Senate or in any other office is considered a political power which is performed by the President of US as per his will. If the president removes any officer as per law then a new officer must be appointed immediately after removal. However, the availability of right to such an officer is decided by the court. Therefore, court decided that commission was signed in relation to Mr. Marbury as Justice of Peace and the seal provided by Secretary of State is final proof of nomination of Marbury as Justice of Peace due to which Marbury has legal right to commission and law has a remedy for breach of this right. This means that court agreed with second legal question.

Thirdly, the court was also concerned regarding the writ of mandamus for which the court examined the term Mandamus in volume 3 of Blackstone commentary. In that volume, it has been mentioned that Mandamus is an order given by court of a bench by the name of king which mandates an individual, organisation or a lower bench to do a specific task relevant to their official duty. Court also expressed that if there is no particular legal remedy for any violation of law then writ of Mandamus can be passed for purposes of justice and governance. Court also took help from other sources which serve as evidence that writ can be used in different situations. Nonetheless, court decided that Marbury was the relevant individual as his rights were breached. Moreover, the court also delved deep into an Act which was passed in 1792. In this Act, war secretary was required to list names of paralysed militants as pension holders. However, an act was also passed in 1793 which amended Act of 1792. After this act, writ of Mandamus ordered war secretary to list every individual on pension notice particularly those persons whose names were written in judges report. This showed that issuing writ of mandamus was done by the highest court of US for the breach of any legal right. It was also relevant in terms of the case in consideration that power placement in US shows that Supreme Court has jurisdiction in situations that involve public ministers, counsels etc. However, in some cases Supreme court only has appellate jurisdiction.

In the case in consideration, Marbury had to show proof that his case was within Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. Nonetheless, Marbury failed to prove his assertion due to which Court was of the view that Judiciary Act that gave authority to court to listen to original cases with the help of writ of mandamus is unconstitutional. Therefore, US supreme court disagreed with the third legal question.

Ratio Decidendi:

This case established the principle of judicial review[1] which in short means the authority to declare that a law is not in accordance with the constitution. The US Supreme Court mentioned in this case that Section 13 of Judiciary Act of 1789 is not in line with Art. III section 2 of US constitution.

Conclusion:

This case was significant as the principle of judicial review is a very controversial principle because it is against the idea of separation of powers which is vital in a democratic country like USA. Moreover, this case has been debated for a long period of time and still this debate is going on which shows that the principle is still intact. Nonetheless, it might be argued that principle of judicial review is in line with motive of the government to have checks and balances as it will ensure that Constitution is ultimate law of land.

Reference(S):

• Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 138 (1803)
• S. Const. art. II, cl. 2
• S. Const. art. II, cl. 3
• Judiciary Act, 1789, §13
• S. Const. art. III, cl. 2
• Judicial review is related to courts power to investigate actions of executives, legislature and administrations of a government and to determine that whether such actions are inconsistent with the constitution or not. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/judicial_review. Visit this site for more details.

[1] Judicial review is related to courts power to investigate actions of executives, legislature and administrations of a government and to determine that whether such actions are inconsistent with the constitution or not. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/judicial_review. Visit this site for more details.