Marbury vs Madison
Reference : 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
Jurisdiction : United States
Plaintiff : Marbury
Defendant : Madison
Background :
In 1800 in the USA, President John Adams ran for office against his vice president, Thomas Jefferson. Both campaigns fought hard during the race. 4 years earlier, in 1796, Adams narrowly defeated Jefferson. In those days, the defeated presidential candidate used to serve as the victorious president’s VP (Vice President). Ostensively, there was a clash between two political parties with hugely different motos and thoughts of how the government of the United States of America should be run. On one hand, Adams’s Federalist Party embraced a robust and centralized government. On the other hand, Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans advocated a decentralized federal authority. Accordingly, they viewed the Federalists as elitists and supporters of the USA’s business aristocracy.
Facts :
The main conflict arose after the election of 1800 when Thomas Jefferson of the Democratic-Republican Party defeated the incumbent President, John Adams of the Federalist Party. Right at the end of Adams’s presidency, the lame-duck Federalist Congress passed a new Act, the Judiciary Act-1801. The act established 6 Circuit Courts with 16 new Circuit Judgeships, which Adams proceeded to fill with Federalists, in an effort to preserve his party’s control of the Judiciary and to frustrate the legislative agenda of Jefferson and his Democratic-Republican Party. Thomas Jefferson and his Democratic-Republicans took office in March of 1801.
The outgoing President, John Adams, was still writing commissions for the new Judges until the last hours of his presidency, which is why this became known as the “midnight appointment.”
John Adams had issued a commission and consequently appointed William Marbury as a Justice of the Peace. However, the new Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver it. William Marbury, one of the appointees, then petitioned the Supreme Court for a Writ of Mandamus, or legal order, compelling Madison to show cause as to why he should not receive his commission.
Issues :
1. Did Marbury have the right to the commission?
2. If he did, and his right had been violated, did the law provide him with a remedy?
3. If it did, would the proper remedy be a Writ of Mandamus from the Supreme Court?
Decisions :
The Court began by holding that Marbury had a legal right to his commission. Chief Justice Marshall reasoned that all appropriate procedures were followed and the commission had been properly signed and sealed. Madison had argued that the commissions were void if not delivered. The Court disagreed, saying that the delivery of the commission was merely a custom, not an essential element of the commission itself. Chief Justice Marshall next turned to the question of remedy and, stated in the plaintiff’s favor, ❝having this legal title to the office, [Marbury] has a consequent right to the commission, a refusal to deliver which is a plain violation of that right, for which the laws of his country afford him a remedy.❞
Then he addressed the crucial third question. He declared that the Court had no constitutional power to issue such a writ. Though the Judiciary Act of 1789 was still in effect, the law granted the Court the power of mandamus in its original jurisdiction. However, the relevant provision of the Act was unconstitutional. Section 13 of the Act was inconsistent with Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which states, “The Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction” and, “in all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.” The Court ruled that American federal courts had the power to refuse any consideration to congressional legislation inconsistent with their interpretation of the Constitution, colloquially known as “striking down” laws.
Thus, Jefferson got a technical victory in the case. On February 24, 1803, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous 4–0 decision against Marbury.
In this way, Chief Justice Marshall popularized the term ‘judicial review’. Accordingly, he reasoned that the Constitution placed limits on the American government’s powers and that those limits would be meaningless unless they were subject to judicial review and enforcement. He also asserted the authority of the Supreme Court to review acts of Congress and declare them unconstitutional. This established the Judiciary as an independent branch of the government capable of making decisions free from political influence.
Author :
1. Farah Arifin
Note : The Case Summary is a platform by the law students, for the law students. We aim to summarize the facts and decisions of various important cases in both Bangla and English with utmost caution. However, this platform is in no way a replacement for going through the complete judgements by the law students and we discourage any learner from relying on case summaries alone. Thank you
