Marbury vs Madison (1803)

I. Basic Information

Petitioner: William Marbury

Respondent: James Madison, Secretary of the State
Ponente: Justice Marshall

II. Background Information

 The Constitution of the United States of America called for the creation of a federal government with
the three branches specifically: the legislative, executive and judiciary.
 Article I created the Congress, Article II established the Office of the President and Article III created
the Federal Court System.
 Article III was left with different kinds of interpretation.
 1789
- The Constitution was ratified
- The Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, that established the Federal Court System
- Congress created a Supreme Court (Three circuit courts, and 13 district courts – There was one
district for each of the 13 states)
 Constitution – did not specify the number of justices that can be appointed to the Supreme Court.
 Judiciary Act of 1801 – Congress provided for a Chief Justice and five associate Justices
 Constitution and Congress – left the scope of the Supreme Court’s power undefined.

(NOTE: Nung ginawa yung Constitution, walang naka sabi kung ilang justices ang pwede ilagay sa Supreme Court. Kaya
pinasa yung Judiciary Act of 1801, na nagsasabi na meron dapat Chief Justice and five associate Justices. Pero hindi naka
sabi sa parehong Constitution and Judiciary Act of 1801 kung ano ang specific power ng Supreme Court)

III. Facts of the Case

 President John Adams (a Federalist), lost his bid for re election to Thomas Jefferson (a Republican).
 The Federalists also lost control of the Congress in the election.
 During the last few months in the office, President John Adams persuaded the Court to pass the
Judiciary Act of 1801, which gives him the power to appoint several new federal judges.
 Because the Federalists are against the Republicans, they hope that by passing the Judiciary Act of
1801, there would be people who would oppose the policies of the incoming Republican
Administration.
 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), but they were not delivered before
the expiration of President Adams’ last term as president.
 Marbury was one of those appointed as a justice of the peace, a minor judicial officer, in the District of
Columbia.
- Marbury’s position was one of the 42 positions created by the lame duck Congress ( dominated by
Adams’ federalist party.”
 Thomas Jefferson refused to honor the commissions, claiming they were invalid because they had not
been delivered by the end of Adams’ term.
 Jefferson instructed his Secretary of the State, James Madison, to refuse the appointments.
 Marbury went to the Supreme Court to demand Madison to appoint him as Justice of Peace.

IV. Issues
 1) Does the applicant have a right to the commission he demands?
2) If he has the right, and that rights have been violated, do the laws of the country afford him a remedy?
3) If they do afford him a remedy, does the Supreme Court have the right to issue a mandamus?

V. Rulings
1) YES. In order to determine whether he is entitled to this commission, it becomes necessary to inquire
whether he has been appointed to the office. For if he has been appointed, the law continues him
in office for five years, and he is entitled to the possession of those evidences of office, which, being
completed, became his property.
- The 2d section of the 2d article of the constitution declares, that “the president shall nominate, and,
by and with the advice and consent of the senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers
and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not otherwise
provided for.”
- The 3d section declares, that “he shall commission all the officers of the United States.”
- Mr. Marbury, then, since his commission was signed by the president and sealed by the secretary
of state, was appointed; and as the law creating the office gave the officer a right to hold for five
years independent of the executive, the appointment was not revocable, but vested in the officer
legal rights which are protected by the laws of his country. To withhold the commission, therefore,
is an act deemed by the court not warranted by law, but violative of a vested legal right.

NOTE: Marbury’s appointment is valid because the APPOINTMENT WAS DONE IN FULL while
Adams was still president. He completed the entire task of the appointment process and he 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 PRESIDENT’S CONTROL.

2) YES. 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) NO. 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 has been stated at
the bar that the appellate jurisdiction may be exercised in a variety of forms, and that if it be the will of
the legislature that a mandamus should be used for that purpose, that will must be obeyed. This is true,
yet the jurisdiction must be appellate, not original. 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 cause.
Although, therefore, a mandamus may be directed to courts, yet to issue such a writ to an officer for
the delivery of a paper, and, therefore, seems not to belong to appellate, but to original jurisdiction. The
authority, therefore, given to the Supreme Court, by the act establishing the judicial courts of the United
States, to issue writs of mandamus to public officers, appears not to be warranted by the constitution;
and it becomes necessary to inquire whether a jurisdiction so conferred can be exercised.

( IN OTHER WORDS: The Court stated that Marbury, indeed, had a right to his commission. But,
more importantly, the Judiciary Act of 1801 was unconstitutional. In Marshall's opinion, Congress
could not give the Supreme Court the power to issue an order granting Marbury his commission. Only
the Constitution could, and the document said nothing about the Supreme Court having the power to
issue such an order. Thus, the Supreme Court could not force Jefferson and Madison to appoint
Marbury, because it did not have the power to do so.)

Application for writ of mandamus denied. Marbury doesn’t get the commission.