Marbury v. Madison Facts of the case

What were the circumstances of Marbury v. Madison in 1803? Why do some scholars and historians refer to Marbury v. Madison as among the most important cases to ever come before the United States Supreme Court? This paper covers the issues surrounding this case, presenting the facts and scholarship relating to the case as well.

Facts of the case

This was the first case to reach the Supreme Court in which the principle of "judicial review" was used. The judicial review concept came into play because the federal courts for the first time utilized their power to overrule legislation by Congress that went against the United States Constitution. The election of 1800 the Federalists (John Adams' party) were defeated by the party led by Thomas Jefferson, the Democratic-Republican party. This led to what the Public Broadcast Service (PBS) explains was an "atmosphere of political panic for the lame duck Federalists" (McBride, 2006). And so with just a few days left in his presidency, John Adams decided to pull a power play, and he appointed "a large number of justices of peace for the District of Columbia" (McBride, p. 1). The commissions of those justices were approved by the United States Senate, and they were signed by Adams, who stamped the "official seal" of the U.S. Government on them.

TWO: Issues of the case

While Adams did indeed put the seal of the U.S. Government on the commissions, they were not all delivered, as incoming President Jefferson (who was inaugurated...

What Adams was really trying to do was to "secure Federalist control of the judiciary," according to Case Briefs. By making all those appointments at the 11th hour (or trying to), Adams tried to create new judgeships and to fill them with Federalist appointees; in fact it was an attempt to appoint 42 new justices of the peace by Adams. The point was that he was out of office but he hoped to leave in his wake some power for the Federalists.
Meanwhile, one of those appointed by Adams, William Marbury, demanded to know how he could be denied his commission, and he went to the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus. A writ of mandamus is basically a legal order that, if it was passed by the Court, compel Madison "to show cause as to why he should not receive his commission" (McBride).

The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Marshall ruled that Marbury did have a right to his commission, and that Marbury had a right to use the law to seek relief for the fact that he did not get the commission that President Adams had apparently given him. A citizen's rights need to be protected, Marshall asserted, even when the president of the United States has taken action to deny those rights.

But Marshall did not grant the writ of mandamus to Marbury because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was, according to Marshall, not a constitutionally legitimate piece of legislation by Congress.…