William Marbury v.

James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States

5 U.S. 137, 2 L. Ed. 60, 1803 U.S Lexis 352, 1 Cranch 137

RULE:
The Supreme Court of the United States does not have original jurisdiction to hear
disputes not enumerated in the US Constitution. However, it has appellate jurisdiction over all
judicial proceedings and is emphatically the power or authority and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is.

FACTS:
At the end of his term (December 1801), President John Adams commissioned
William Marbury (plaintiff), Dennis Ramfay, Robert Townfend Hooe, and William Harper to
serve as justices of peace in the District of Columba. The Senate consented to the
appointments, the commissions in due form were signed and sealed by the United States
seal, and the notice of this motion was given to Mr. Madison. Shortly thereafter, Thomas
Jefferson was sworn in as President and the plaintiff, along with the three other men, did
not receive their commissions. They then moved the United States Supreme Court for a rule
requiring Madison (Defendant) to show cause as to why a mandamus should not issue
directing him to deliver Marbury the said commission. The Defendant did not deliver the
commissions; plaintiff filed a motion for mandamus seeking an order compelling the
delivery of his commission.

ISSUE:
1. Did the plaintiff have a right to delivery of his commission?
2. Does the U.S. Supreme Court have the authority to review acts of Congress to
determine constitutionality?
3. If he has a right to the commission, is there an available remedy (mandamus) under
the laws of the U.S.?
4. Does the U.S. Supreme Court have original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus?

CONCLUSION:
1. The Court ruled that the appointment was not revocable and vested in the
applicant’s legal rights protected by the laws of the U.S., given that the commissions
were duly signed and sealed by the U.S. seal. Withholding the commission would
violate the applicant’s vested legal right.
2. The U.S. Supreme Court has the authority to review acts of Congress, as the courts
are bound to take notice of the Constitution. However, if two laws conflict with each
other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. The very essence of judicial
duty is to determine which among the conflicting rules must govern the case.
3. Upon reasons of justice, and in order to maintain peace, order, and good
government, and where there is no specific remedy, the Court ought to assist by
mandamus.
4. A writ of mandamus to a public officer belonged to original jurisdiction. The SC’s
jurisdiction is limited to the set powers indicated in the U.S. Constitution. The
Constitution vests the whole judicial power of the U.S to the Supreme Court, and
inferior courts as Congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish. In the
distribution of such power, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in all cases
affecting the ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; however, in all other
cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.
RULING/ DECISION:
The statute relied upon the plaintiff for relief (§ 13 of the Act of 1789) which gives
the Court authority to issue writs of mandamus to an officer was contrary to the
Constitution as an act of original jurisdiction and thereby void; the rule was discharged
and the plaintiff did not receive his commission.

Note:
Under the Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm of
the constitution, the law/ contract becomes null or void and without any force of effect.