Marbury v. Madison and the Precedent it Set for the Future

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 on March 5, 1801) told his Secretary of State, James Madison, to hold onto the commissions that had not been officially delivered. 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. The Act in fact extended for cases under the "original jurisdiction" clause, which meant that only cases could be considered that involved ambassadors, "other public ministers and consuls," and to cases "in which the state shall be party" (McBride, p. 2). But Congress had "exceeded its authority" and so Marshall did not give Marbury his writ (and his commission) because when Congress passes laws that conflict with the constitution, the High Court must act to uphold its ultimate authority because as Marshall noted, Article VI of the U.S. Constitution is "the supreme law of the land" (McBride, p. 2).

THREE: The ruling

No.

FOUR: Analysis

Chief Justice Marshall was aware this was a constitutional crisis, and he clearly wanted to set a standard so that these crises couldn't creep into the federal government again. It would be easy to just look at this case and pass it off as a decision that overruled something Congress had done -- beyond its powers of law-making. But the bigger picture, according to the literature, is that the U.S. is governed not just by the executive branch and by Congress, but in fact there is a system of checks and balances and the Supreme Court is one third of that important federal system. The separation of powers was an important component of Marshall's ruling in this case. The Constitution did include language that limited the powers of Congress, otherwise, as Marshall wrote, "the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act," and that would basically render the High Court powerless to make important rulings (Schotten, 136).

What he did was actually more than just restricting the power of Congress, although he certainly did that. In fact when the Republican-controlled Congress cancelled the summer session of the Supreme Court (the High Court was to meet in the summer of 1802 before Congress cancelled that session), it was very obvious to Marshall that there was a political crisis and very bad blood between the two national parties. Hence, he in effect became a kind of "constitutional umpire," according to Peter Schotten, writing in the journal Perspectives on Political Science.