The Federalist Society

Optional Login

Have an account?

Sign in

Email

Password


Forgot password?

Proceed as Guest

Continue

Marbury v. Madison

Facts of the Case

Provided by Oyez

Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the 1800 presidential election. Before Jefferson took office on March 4, 1801, Adams and Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which created new courts, added judges, and gave the president more control over appointment of judges. The Act was essentially an attempt by Adams and his party to frustrate his successor, as he used the act to appoint 16 new circuit judges and 42 new justices of the peace. The appointees were approved by the Senate, but they would not be valid until their commissions were delivered by the Secretary of State. 

 

William Marbury had been appointed Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia, but his commission was not delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to compel the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver the documents. Marbury, joined by three other similarly situated appointees, petitioned for a writ of mandamus compelling the delivery of the commissions.

Questions

  1. Do the plaintiffs have a right to receive their commissions?

  2. Can they sue for their commissions in court?

  3. Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order the delivery of their commissions?

Conclusions

  1. The Court found that Madison’s refusal to deliver the commission was illegal, but did not order Madison to hand over Marbury’s commission via writ of mandamus. Instead, the Court held that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 enabling Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional, since it purported to extend the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III, Section 2, established. 

    Marshall expanded that a writ of mandamus was the proper way to seek a remedy, but concluded the Court could not issue it. Marshall reasoned that the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with the Constitution. Congress did not have power to modify the Constitution through regular legislation because Supremacy Clause places the Constitution before the laws. 

    In so holding, Marshall established the principle of judicial review, i.e., the power to declare a law unconstitutional. 

Whistling in Chevronland: Why Department of Labor Interpretations of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Whistleblower Provisions Do Not Deserve Judicial Deference
Federalist Society Review

Whistling in Chevronland: Why Department of Labor Interpretations of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Whistleblower Provisions Do Not Deserve Judicial Deference

Donn C. Meindertsma

Federalist Society Review, Volume 20

Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public...

The Founders Interpret the Constitution: The Division of Federal and State Powers
Federalist Society Review

The Founders Interpret the Constitution: The Division of Federal and State Powers

Robert G. Natelson

Federalist Society Review, Volume 19

Note from the Editor:  This article surveys ratification-era statements by defenders of the proposed Constitution...

2015 NLC Live Blog
News

2015 NLC Live Blog

Daniel T. Richards, Timothy Courtney

The 2015 National Lawyers Convention is in full swing! (We were trending on Twitter.) This year...

Justice Alito Reviews "The Constitution: An Introduction" by Michael Stokes Paulsen & Luke Paulsen
Federalist Society Review

Justice Alito Reviews "The Constitution: An Introduction" by Michael Stokes Paulsen & Luke Paulsen

Samuel A. Alito

Engage Volume 16, Issue 1

The Constitution: An Introduction by Michael Stokes Paulsen & Luke Paulsen   Reviewed by Justice Samuel...

Bar Watch Bulletin August 8, 2008

Bar Watch Bulletin August 8, 2008

Heller, Individual Rights, Terrorism, Rule of Law, the ICC, and Judicial Criticism

The American Bar Association's Annual Meeting will be taking place from August 7-12 in New...

View more