marbury vs madison Flashcards
what happened?
This case is one of the most important in supreme court history. the first two political parties to emerge in the US were the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans. the Federalist President John Adams lost the election of 1800 to democratic Republican candidate Thomas Jefferson. Adams hatched a plan to try to dilute the power and influence of the Democratic Republicans. Once Jefferson took office the Federalist dominated Congress created a slew of new courts and judgeships. Furthermore, in the US it is the president who is constitutionally responsible for appointing federal judges. Adams, in his last days as president, packed the federal Judiciary full of federalist judges who would likely frustrate Jefferson during his presidency. Adams was signing commissions for these judges right up until the moment he left office, and most of them were delivered but a few of them were not. When Jefferson took office, he ordered his secretary of state Madison to leave those undelivered commissions undelivered.
William Marbury who was one of those judges (appointed as a judge of peace in the state of Columbia) who had been appointed but had not yet received his commission. he sued Madison in the Supreme Court to get his commission, by what’s known as a ‘writ of mandamus’ which is just a court order for an official to do what they’re legally required to do. This is the political and legal problem. Under a political point of view this expresses a series of acts that come from political rivalry. Marbury did not receive this commission. Jefferson ordered Madison (his secretary of state), to not deliver the commission anymore and not complete the procedure. Marbury and his lawyer pointed out that the delivery of the commission was a formal act, and without any political meaning, so the true political part of this situation has been played by Adams, so they only needed to sign. The supreme court decided to hear the case despite Jefferson’s hostility.
what’s a writ of mandamus?
an order from a court to an inferior government official ordering the government official to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion.
what’s the constitutional principle behind this issue?
The constitutional principle at stake in this case is the jurisdiction Clauses in article 3 of The Constitution. article 3 is all about the judicial branch, how it gets its power and what kinds of cases it can hear jurisdiction. so article 3 states that the Supreme Court has both original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction: original jurisdiction means the court has power to hear certain cases for the first time, while appellate jurisdiction means that the court has power to hear appeals from lower federal courts.
now according to article three of the Constitution there are only a narrow set of circumstances which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over, and they are as follows: all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, councils and those in which a state shall be party. so the Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction in cases involving States or foreign ambassadors.
what are the 3 questions of judge marshall?
- did marbury have the right to commission?
- If he did, and this right had been violated by the secretary of state Madison, did Marbury have a remedy against this violation? is the court ordered ‘writ of mandamus’ the proper legal means?
- If Marbury had the right, this right was violated and he had a remedy, was that remedy writ of mandamus to be issued by the supreme court?
1) Did Marbury have the right to commission?
the answer was yes. Congress established the new courts and the judgeships, so the president did his constitutional duty to appoint judges to them. and the fact that some of them were undelivered was just a technicality. everything on that count was above board and perfectly legal.
2) If he did, and this right had been violated by the secretary of state Madison, did Marbury have a remedy against this violation? is the court ordered ‘writ of mandamus’ the proper legal means?
the answer to the second question is yes.
3) If Marbury had the right, this right was violated and he had a remedy, was that remedy writ of mandamus to be issued by the supreme court?
Marbury thought that the supreme court could issue a ‘writ of mandamus’ because of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which, in addition to establishing all the lower federal courts, also said in Article 13 that the Supreme Court has authority to issue writ of mandamus in original jurisdiction cases. Marbury’s case is being heard before The Supreme Court for the first time, and that means it’s within original jurisdiction, and therefore the court could issue a writ of mandamus. However, judge Marshall said that article 13 of the Judiciary Act conflicted with article 3 of The Constitution. Article 3 gives the court original jurisdiction over cases involving States and ambassadors, but Marbury and Madison are neither States nor ambassadors: Marbury is a judge, and Madison is the secretary of state.
John Marshall said that it’s not what the Constitution says about the Court’s Authority, and therefore Article 13 of the Judiciary Act is unconstitutional. So ultimately Marbury did not get his commission.
why is this case important?
This decision started the process of judicial review in the US. Through this decision we know that courts have the power to strike down pieces of legislation that are in contrast with the constitution (annulment done by American courts). This case is the most important decision in American law. The court managed to affirm jurisdiction, remain outside of the true political problem behind this case, and define this boundary between the executive and judicial branches of federal government.
This was the first time that the constitution prevailed. The supreme court acquired the control of constitutionality, they decide cases of conflicts of hierarchy where the constitution is under discussion.
