Authored By: Zoha Bilal
Pakistan College of Law
Case name : Marbury V Madison
Citation : 5 U.S . (1 Cranch) 137 ; 2 L . Ed . 60 (1803)
Courts : US supreme court
Date of judgment: 24 February, 1803
Bench: chief justice Jhon Marshall, along with associate justice’s William Cushing, William Paterson, Samuel Chase, Bushrod Washington, and Alfred Moore
Important provisions : Article 1 , 3, and 6 of the US constitution and Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789
INTRODUCTION
Marbury v Madison is a landmark decision by United States Supreme court which established the principle of judicial review. Judicial review is the power of the judiciary to review any law or order passed by the legislature and strike down if it is unconstitutional. The case arose when outgoing president Jhon Addams in 1801 appointed William Marbury as a justice of the peace, but the secretary of state James Madison under new president Thomas Jefferson refused to deliver his commission. The “ midnight judges” were federalist judges appointed by Jhon Adams on his last night as president till 9 pm. William Marbury was one of these midnight judges, whose commission was not delivered, because Jhon Adams lost the 1800 election to Thomas Jefferson. The midnight judges were 16 court judges and dozens of justices of peace appointed by President John Adams in the last hours of his presidency in march, 1801 because his federalist party lost the 1800 election to Jefferson’s Democratic Republicans. Through Judiciary act of 1801 federalist Congress created new courts, Adam quickly fill them with loyal federalist to keep their influence before Jefferson took over the office. Marbury petition supreme court in December 1801, for a writ of Mandamus seeking to compel secretary to deliver the commission under section 13 of judiciary act of 1789. Chief Justice Jhon Marshall used this case to declare that Marbury had the right to his commission, the section of the Judiciary act of 1789 that gave the supreme court original jurisdiction to issue writ of Mandamus was unconstitutional. He declared through this case for the first time that the courts have the power to strike down the laws that violate the constitution. Jhon marshal stated “ it is emphatically the duty of the Judicial department to say what law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessary, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the court must decide on the operation of each.” It is a landmark case because it established Judicial Review, and made constitution supreme law of land.
Parties of the case
The parties to the case were William Marbury as plaintiff, a federalist appointee seeking his undelivered commission and James Madison, the defendant , Secretary of the state who refused to deliver commission
Facts of the case
The dispute was whether the SC had the constitutional power to order James Madison to deliver commission. Two main issues were raised; whether Marbury had a legal right to have the commission delivered and whether the supreme court had the authority under article 3 of the Constitution to issue the writ on it’s original jurisdiction.
Legal issues
- Does William Marbury has a right to commission?
- Does United States SC provide any legal remedy to William Marbury if he has a right?
- Can Supreme court issue the writ of Mandamus to secretary, James Madison to deliver commission under section 13 of the judiciary Act of 1789?
- Whether section 13 of judicial act of 1789 was unconstitutional? Because it conflicts with Article 3, section 2 of the United States Constitution.
Arguments presented by Petitioner
- Marbury argued that he has legal right to the commission because it was signed by president, was sealed by secretary, and his appointment was complete.
- He argued that refusal of commission violated his legal right, and the law must provide remedy for violation
- He claimed that the supreme court had the authority to issue writ of Mandamus under section 13 of the judiciary act of 1789.
The legal provision he relied on was section 13, judiciary act of 1789 ( where there is a right, there is a remedy.)
Arguments by the Respondent
James Madison did not appear in the court on the directions of president Thomas Jefferson, refusing to acknowledge the court’s authority in this matter so there are no arguments.
Court’s reasoning and analysis
Jhon Marshall opinionated for unanimous court. He agreed with the first two issues. The court held that once the commission has been signed and sealed, Marbury has been appointed by judge. The delivery is a mere formality that is bound to be performed by Madison. With regard to third issue Jhon Marshall interpreted article 3, section 2 of the constitution as a limited grant of original jurisdiction for supreme court. Marshall then read the section 13 of the judiciary act of 1789 attempting to grant the court original jurisdiction to issue writ of Mandamus to federal official. Because the Mandamus cases are not listed in article 3, he stated that the statute exceeded the congress’s power. Finally he invoked article 6, clause 2, the supremacy clause, to hold that the “constitution is supreme law” and any ordinary statute repugnant to it is void.
There were no precedents on judicial review as this was the first case when judicial review was established. Marshall relied on general principle “UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM” meaning where there is a right, there is a remedy.
Judgement and Ratio decidendi
- The court agreed Marbury had the right to commission because it was signed and sealed and the delivery was not required.
- The court agreed that Marbury was entitled to legal remedy because where there is a right there is a remedy so the law must provide a remedy.
- The court held that it cannot issue writ of Mandamus because section 13 of judiciary act of 1789 conflicts with article 3 of the Constitution and is therefore void.
The petition was dismissed for want of jurisdiction an no relief was granted. William Marbury did not receive his commission.
Ratio decidendi
The Constitution is the supreme law of land. Any act of congress repugnant to the constitution is void, and it is the duty of the Judicial branch to what the aw is. This power is known as judicial review. This ratio decidendi became the foundation for future cases.
Critical analysis
This decision has a lot of significance as this case established judicial review, before 1803, no case had explicitly granted the power of judicial review. It created a new constitutional principle that made judiciary an equal branch.
The decision affects every future case involving constitutional challenges to statutes. The decision affects all three branches. The congress must legislate within it’s limits and the president’s power and actions could face judicial scrutiny , and the judiciary gained institutional power.
Jhon Marshall ruled against Marbury and avoided a confrontation with Jefferson that the court would have lost, while securing long term judicial power.
It is a landmark case but there are certain criticism to it as to the court should first look upon the jurisdiction of the case and whether it has authority or not, if the court had solved his issue, the matter would not have proceeded at this extent.
Another criticism is to the process which Jhon Marshall took to reach the end that the US supreme court had superiority over the other branches of US government. Jhon Marshall avoided confrontation with Jefferson which delayed the proceeding if the court had ruled that Marbury did not have any right until he was commissioned or vice versa, the constitutional issues of the court wouldn’t have been raised.
Critics also points that Marshall’s was a secretary of state under president Adams before becoming chief justice, which is a major conflict of interest critique of Marbury v Madison. As secretary, Marshall himself also failed to deliver Marbury’s commission on time, this act created the law suit. So when Marbury petitioned supreme court, Marshall was essentially judging his own administrative failure. Critics argue he should have recused himself, because the case tested whether Marshall’s office violated the law. Instead Marshall not only just judged the case but used it to establish the principle of judicial review while dodging the order against Madison, making it look like a political self preservation for the Federalists. Thomas James Jefferson and his allies refer to it as improper and self serving, and scholars of today refer to it as prime example of judicial conflict of interest in the US history
Conclusion
Marbury V Madison arose when president appointed William Marbury at last minute, William sued secretary of state James Madison for his undelivered commission. Chief justice Marshall held that Marbury had a right to commission, but the supreme court could not grant relief due to section 13 of the judiciary act of 1789 expanded the court’s original jurisdiction unconstitutionally beyond article 3.
The principle of judicial review was established that says the judiciary has the power to declare laws unconstitutional if they are against constitution.
It established judiciary as an equal branch giving it power to oversight the legislature and executive keeping the check and balance so the other branch does not get too powerful.
