Summary of Marbury v.

Madison (1803)

Relevant Facts: PL Marbury was appointed a justice of the peace at the very end of Adams
presidential term, one day before the changing of the guard (3/4/1801), and the appointment was
pushed through and confirmed by the Senate. The new administration obtained a repeal of the
statute creating the courts and refused to grant Marburys commission. Marbury sued incoming
Secretary of State James Madison in the Supreme Court for a writ of Mandamus (we command
orders public official to perform a duty under the law).

Marbury contends (1) the Court had the jurisdiction to rule on such a matter; (2) Madison violated
federal statutory and constitutional rules by withholding the commission; and (3) the mandamus was
an appropriate remedy.

Issue: Under Constitutional law, is the Supreme Court the appropriate court to adjudicate whether a
federal commission to serve as a justice of the peace could stand under a new political term?

Under constitutional law, does the new political terms officers action of denying a previously
confirmed appointment under the previous term violate any statutes or rules?

Under constitutional law, is a writ of mandamus an appropriate means to compel the Court to grant a
confirmation by a previous President?

Holding: (1) Yes. The Constitution is the law of the land, and all other laws are subservient to it.

(2) Yes. Marbury had vested a legal right in the commission for the term as justice, a right which
was not revocable.

(3) Yes, Mandamus was the appropriate legal remedy, for there was no other under the law for
Marbury at the time of the suit, other than to go the Federal route in seeing his appointment and
subsequent confirmation followed through.

Courts Rationale/Reasoning: The court may enforce with mandamus because the court has been
granted the power under the constitution to use its power when the right claimed is one given by a
law of the United States. Otherwise, the Court has mere appellate jurisdiction. However the
Constitution does not grant such a power.

So the court must decide here, the means in which to govern: where the constitution may take a
back seat to other law, or where the constitution holds overall precedent. Either way, the law or the
constitution, must apply totally to the case at hand. In short, it would be betrayal to the very meaning
of what the framers of the constitution intended. The constitution must be observed first and
foremost; everything else is subservient to it. Both the legislature and executive branches support
this ideal.
Rule: The Secretary of State is a person whose actions fall under the scope of the Judicial Act of
1789. Mandamus is the appropriate remedy for the Court to use to enforce its authority on any
courts appointed, persons holding office in the United States.

Important Dicta: Aside from the decision, important infoN/A

Dissenting: Justice

Concurring: Justice

Marbury v. Madison
Posted on September 20, 2012 | Constitutional Law | Tags: Constitutional Law Case Brief

FACTS
In the final days of John Adams presidency he appointed a multitude of justices of the peace under the
Organic Act deliberately because the oncoming President Thomas Jefferson would not. The
commissions were signed and sealed but were not delivered. President Jefferson later refused to honor
the commissions because they had gone undelivered until Jefferson had held office and therefore felt
they were invalid. Marbury, one of the appointees, later applied to the supreme court for a writ of
mamandus, claiming that the Supreme Court could issue such write to any courts appointed, or
persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.

ISSUE
1. Is Marburys appointment valid?
2. Whether the Supreme Court can award the writ of mandamus.
3. Whether the Supreme Court has judicial review power.
4. Is offering the writ of mandamus the appropriate remedy for the court?
HOLDING:
1. Yes. It is valid because the appointment was done in full while Adams was still President. He
completed the entire task of the appointment process and did all he could do in such completion.
The appointment is valid when the President undertakes his final act required for the appointment,
not upon delivery of the appointment which is beyond the Presidents control. Marbury is entitled
to appointment as a remedy because it was a right given to him by President Adams. In this
sense, Marbury was given a specific right. The very essence of government is to provide
remedies to rights that are abridged.
2. Yes, the appointment was a legal right offered to Marbury; and for every legal right violated,
the law must afford a remedy. As such, his remedy is the rightful entitlement to the appointment.
The delivery of the appointment was simply ministerial and therefore was owed to him. The
appointment had already occurred prior to the necessity of delivery; and once the appointment was
granted, Marbury had a vested legal right.
3. Yes, but not in the instant case. The Judiciary Act of 1789 clearly gives the Supreme Court
judicial review over writs of mandamus. However, Article III of the Constitution does not give the
Supreme Court authority to review the writs. Therefore, the two laws are in conflict. As such, the
Supreme Court being charged with upholding the Constitution must adopt Article IIIs
application. Justice Marshall argued that there would be no point for the Supreme Court to exist
were it not to uphold the Constitution and strike down laws adopted by Congress that necessarily
conflict with the Constitution itself. In so doing, Marshall established the principle of judicial review.
4. Yes, but in the instant case the Constitution conflict with the Judiciary Act of 1789 and
therefore the remedy cannot be proffered. In this case, a writ of mandamus is appropriate because
it is an order for a public official to carry out his duty. But for the reasons explained in (3), the order
cannot be carried out.

.Bloomberg Law
Citation. 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803)

Brief Fact Summary. William Marbury (Marbury), an end-of-term appointee of

President John Adams (President Adams) to a justice of the peace position in the
District of Columbia, brought suit against President Thomas Jeffersons (President
Jefferson) Secretary of State, James Madison, seeking delivery of his commission.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court)
has constitutional authority to review executive actions and legislative acts. The
Supreme Court has limited jurisdiction, the bounds of which are set by the United
States Constitution (Constitution), which may not be enlarged by the Congress.

Facts. Before the inauguration of President Jefferson, outgoing President Adams

attempted to secure Federalist control of the judiciary by creating new judgeships
and filling them with Federalist appointees. Included in these efforts was the
nomination by President Adams, under the Organic Act of the District of Columbia
(the District), of 42 new justices of the peace for the District, which were confirmed
by the Senate the day before President Jeffersons inauguration. A few of the
commissions, including Marburys, were undelivered when President Jefferson took
office. The new president instructed Secretary of State James Madison to withhold
delivery of the commissions. Marbury sought mandamus in the Supreme Court,
requiring James Madison to deliver his commission.

Issue. Is Marbury entitled to mandamus from the Supreme Court?

Held. No. Case dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

As the President signed Marburys commission after his confirmation, the
appointment has been made, and Marbury has a right to the commission
Given that the law imposed a duty on the office of the president to deliver
Marburys commission, that the Supreme Court has the power to review executive
actions when the executive acts as an officer of the law and the nature of the writ of
mandamus to direct an officer of the government to do a particular thing therein
specified, mandamus is the appropriate remedy, if available to the Supreme Court.
To issue mandamus to the Secretary of State really is to sustain an original action,
which is (in this case) outside the constitutional limits of jurisdiction imposed on the
Supreme Court.

Discussion. The importance of Marbury v. Madison is both political and legal.

Although the case establishes the traditions of judicial review and a litigable
constitution on which the remainder of constitutional law rests, it also transformed
the Supreme Court from an incongruous institution to an equipotent head of a
branch of the federal government.