Marbury v. Madison (1803)

1. Title & Citation 

• Full Name: Marbury v. Madison (1803)1
• Official Citation: 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L Ed 60 (1803)2.2

2. Court Name & Bench 

• Supreme Court of the United States3
• Judges: Chief Justice John Marshall (authoring the opinion), Associate Justices  William Cushing, William Paterson, Samuel Chase, Bushrod Washington, Alfred  Moore4
• Bench Type: Constitutional Bench5

3. Date of Judgment 

• February 24, 18036

4. Parties Involved 

• Petitioner/Appellant: William Marbury, one of the appointees to the post of  Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia.7
• Respondent/Defendant: James Madison, Secretary of State under President  Thomas Jefferson, who withheld Marbury’s commission 

5. Facts of the Case 

American politics at the turn of the nineteenth century was fraught with competition between the  Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans.8 When Jefferson won the presidential election of 1800, outgoing President John Adams and the Federalist-controlled Congress sought to maintain  their influence by appointing several “midnight judges,” including William Marbury,9in the  administration’s last hours. Adams signed Marbury’s commission, but the commission was not  delivered before Jefferson took office.10 

Jefferson ordered Secretary of State Madison to withhold the remaining undelivered  commissions. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to compel Madison  to deliver his commission, relying on Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which he believed  empowered the Court to issue such orders. 

6. Issues Raised 

• Was Marbury entitled to receive his commission?11
• If so, did the law provide him with a remedy? 
• Could the Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus to compel delivery of the  commission as an exercise of its original jurisdiction? 

7. Arguments of the Parties 

• Petitioner (Marbury):Argued that once the President signed and sealed a  commission, the appointment was complete and delivery was a mere formality. Claimed a vested legal right to the commission and sought a writ of mandamus as  a remedy. 
• Respondent (Madison/the government):Madison did not appear; the Jeffersonian  perspective was that the Supreme Court lacked constitutional power to compel  Madison, arguing separation of executive-judicial functions. 

8. Judgment / Final Decision 

• The Court held that Marbury had a right to the commission since all formalities  were met; the non-delivery violated that right. A legal remedy existed for  violation of such a right. However, the Court concluded it lacked authority to  grant the writ of mandamus because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789,  which purported to give the Supreme Court power to issue such writs under its  original jurisdiction, was unconstitutional. Thus, Marbury’s request was denied,  setting a precedent for judicial review.12

9. Obiter Dicta 

Chief Justice John Marshall’s remark at the conclusion of Marbury v. Madison is particularly  persuasive and impactful: 

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” 

This foundational assertion highlights the judiciary’s authority to interpret the Constitution and  invalidate laws or executive actions that conflict with it. This emphasis on judicial review set a  precedent for judicial independence and the system of checks and balances, profoundly affecting  the outcome of future cases.13 The principle established ensures courts can act as guardians of  constitutional governance, protecting individual rights and maintaining the rule of law by  holding the other branches accountable. This remark essentially laid the groundwork for the  judiciary’s role as a co-equal branch of government, shaping American constitutional law ever  since.14 

10.Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi 

• Chief Justice Marshall’s analysis was thorough and creative: The Court reasoned  that the Constitution specifically outlined the Court’s original jurisdiction, which  did not allow Congress to expand it by statute. It was emphasized that “it is  emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.” If laws  conflict, the courts decide which governs. In declaring Section 13 unconstitutional, the Court established the doctrine of judicial review, the  judiciary’s authority to invalidate laws contravening the Constitution. Marshall  walked a strategic line, asserting the Court’s power while avoiding direct conflict  with the Jefferson administration by denying Marbury’s remedy on constitutional  grounds, not on merit.15 

11.Conclusion / Observations 

Marbury v. Madison is the seminal case for judicial review in the United States and much of the  common law world. The decision profoundly shaped American constitutionalism, establishing  the judiciary as an independent and coequal branch of government capable of invalidating  legislative and executive acts. While the verdict did not give Marbury his commission, it gave  the Court enduring authority to interpret and enforce constitutional boundaries on government  power. 

Legal scholars often debate whether John Marshall should have recused himself, given his  involvement in the commission’s delivery, and whether the ruling was politically motivated to  avoid a head-on confrontation with the executive branch. Nonetheless, the decision’s careful  reasoning and rhetorical power ensured that the principle of judicial review would become  foundational in democratic governance. 

Marbury v. Madison remains a cornerstone of American constitutional law, establishing judicial  review as a fundamental principle. While the decision strategically avoided direct confrontation  with the executive branch, some legal scholars argue this cautious approach limited immediate  

relief for Marbury. Nonetheless, the ruling’s affirmation of judicial authority has shaped the  balance of power in profound ways, demonstrating the judiciary’s essential role in upholding  constitutional governance. 

Reference(S):

1 Marbury v Madison (1803) 5 US (1 Cranch) 137. 

2Ibid. 

3 Henry J Abraham, The Judicial Process (6th edn, Oxford University Press 2014) 94–95. 4Ibid 

5Ibid 

6 Marbury (n 1) 137. 

7 Thomas C Grey, ‘The Origins of Judicial Review’ (2000) 90 Georgetown Law Journal 563, 567.

8 Lawrence M Friedman, A History of American Law (3rd edn, Simon & Schuster 2005) 83–85.

9 Marbury (n 1) 138. 

10 Judiciary Act 1789, §13; Marbury (n 1) 139. 

11 Marbury (n 1) 141–142.

12 Judiciary Act (n 13); Marbury (n 1) 145. 

13 Marbury (n 1) 146. 

14 Henry J Abraham (n 3).

15 Marbury (n 1) 144-146; A W B Simpson, Human Rights and the End of Empire (Oxford University Press 2001)  110.