Summary of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803).

Facts
On his last day in office, President John Adams named forty-two justices of the peace and sixteen
new circuit court justices for the District of Columbia under the Organic Act. The Organic Act was an
attempt by the Federalists to take control of the federal judiciary before Thomas Jefferson took office.

The commissions were signed by President Adams and sealed by acting Secretary of State John
Marshall (who later became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and author of this opinion), but they
were not delivered before the expiration of Adams’s term as president. Thomas Jefferson refused to
honor the commissions, claiming that they were invalid because they had not been delivered by the
end of Adams’s term.

William Marbury (P) was an intended recipient of an appointment as justice of the peace. Marbury
applied directly to the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of mandamus to compel
Jefferson’s Secretary of State, James Madison (D), to deliver the commissions. The Judiciary Act of
1789 had granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus “…to any courts
appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.”

Issues
1. Does Marbury have a right to the commission?
2. Does the law grant Marbury a remedy?
3. Does the Supreme Court have the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether
they are unconstitutional and therefore void?
4. Can Congress expand the scope of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what is
specified in Article III of the Constitution?
5. Does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus?
Holding and Rule (Marshall)
1. Yes. Marbury has a right to the commission.

The order granting the commission takes effect when the Executive’s constitutional power of
appointment has been exercised, and the power has been exercised when the last act required
from the person possessing the power has been performed. The grant of the commission to
Marbury became effective when signed by President Adams.
2. Yes. The law grants Marbury a remedy.The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the
right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One
of the first duties of government is to afford that protection.

Where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of
that duty, the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the law for a
remedy. The President, by signing the commission, appointed Marbury a justice of the peace in
the District of Columbia. The seal of the United States, affixed thereto by the Secretary of State,
is conclusive testimony of the verity of the signature, and of the completion of the appointment.
Having this legal right to the office, he has a consequent right to the commission, a refusal to
deliver which is a plain violation of that right for which the laws of the country afford him a
remedy.
3. Yes. The Supreme Court has the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether
they are unconstitutional and therefore void.

It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the
 rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict
with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each. If courts are to regard the
Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the
Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
4. No. Congress cannot expand the scope of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what
is specified in Article III of the Constitution.

The Constitution states that “the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases
affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a
party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.” If it had been
intended to leave it in the discretion of the Legislature to apportion the judicial power between
the Supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, this section is mere surplusage
and is entirely without meaning. If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate
jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and original
jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of
jurisdiction made in the Constitution, is form without substance.
5. No. The Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus.

To enable this court then to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate
jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction.

It is the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction that it revises and corrects the proceedings in
a cause already instituted, and does not create that case. Although, therefore, a mandamus may
be directed to courts, yet to issue such a writ to an officer for the delivery of a paper is, in effect,
the same as to sustain an original action for that paper, and is therefore a matter of original
jurisdiction.
Disposition
Application for writ of mandamus denied. Marbury doesn’t get the commission.
Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Marbury v. Madison, arguably the most important case in Supreme Court history, was the
first U.S. Supreme Court case to apply the principle of "judicial review" -- the power of
federal courts to void acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution. Written in 1803
byChief Justice John Marshall, the decision played a key role in making the Supreme Court a
separate branch of government on par with Congress and the executive.

The facts surrounding Marbury were complicated. In the election of 1800, the newly
organized Democratic-Republican party of Thomas Jefferson defeated the Federalist party of
John Adams, creating an atmosphere of political panic for the lame duck Federalists. In the
final days of his presidency, Adams appointed a large number of justices of peace for the
District of Columbia whose commissions were approved by the Senate, signed by the
president, and affixed with the official seal of the government. The commissions were not
delivered, however, and when President Jefferson assumed office March 5, 1801, he ordered
James Madison, his Secretary of State, not to deliver them. William Marbury, one of the
appointees, then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus, or legal order,
compelling Madison to show cause why he should not receive his commission.

In resolving the case, Chief Justice Marshall answered three questions. First, did Marbury
have a right to the writ for which he petitioned? Second, did the laws of the United States
allow the courts to grant Marbury such a writ? Third, if they did, could the Supreme Court
issue such a writ? With regard to the first question, Marshall ruled that Marbury had been
properly appointed in accordance with procedures established by law, and that he therefore
had a right to the writ. Secondly, because Marbury had a legal right to his commission, the
law must afford him a remedy. The Chief Justice went on to say that it was the particular
responsibility of the courts to protect the rights of individuals -- even against the president of
the United States. At the time, Marshall's thinly disguised lecture to President Jefferson about
the rule of law was much more controversial than his statement about judicial review (which
doctrine was widely accepted).

It was in answering the third question -- whether a writ of mandamus issuing from the
Supreme Court was the proper remedy -- that Marshall addressed the question of judicial
review. The Chief Justice ruled that the Court could not grant the writ because Section 13 of
the Judiciary Act of 1789, which granted it the right to do so, was unconstitutional insofar as
it extended to cases of original jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction -- the power to bring cases
directly to the Supreme Court -- was the only jurisdictional matter dealt with by the
Constitution itself. According to Article III, it applied only to cases "affecting ambassadors,
other public ministers and consuls" and to cases "in which the state shall be party." By
extending the Court's original jurisdiction to include cases like Marbury's, Congress had
exceeded it authority. And when an act of Congress is in conflict with the Constitution, it is,
Marshall said, the obligation of the Court to uphold the Constitution because, by Article VI, it
is the "supreme law of the land."

As a result of Marshall's decision Marbury was denied his commission -- which presumably
pleased President Jefferson. Jefferson was not pleased with the lecture given him by the Chief
Justice, however, nor with Marshall's affirmation of the Court's power to review acts of
Congress. For practical strategic reasons, Marshall did not say that the Court was the only
interpreter of the Constitution (though he hoped it would be) and he did not say how the
Court would enforce its decisions if Congress or the Executive opposed them. But, by his
timely assertion of judicial review, the Court began its ascent as an equal branch of
government -- an equal in power to the Congress and the president. Throughout its long
history, when the Court needed to affirm its legitimacy, it has cited Marshall's opinion in
Marbury v. Madison.

AUTHOR'S BIO

Alex McBride is a third year law student at Tulane Law School in New Orleans. He is
articles editor on the TULANE LAW REVIEW and the 2005 recipient of the Ray Forrester
Award in Constitutional Law. In 2007, Alex will be clerking with Judge Susan Braden on
the United States Court of Federal Claims in Washington.