Marbury v. Madison: constitutional implications and judicial review

Marbury v. Madison is an extremely influential, foundational case in United States law. It forms the basis for the practice of judicial review. It also set the tone for the role of the Federal Judiciary in the Legislative Process and in Government in general.

The case itself was part of a larger political battle between the newly-elected President Thomas Jefferson, a Democrat-Republican, and the outgoing President, John Adams, a Federalist. At this time, the Democrat-Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and the Federalists, led by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, were fighting over how much power the United States Federal Government should be allowed relative to the State Governments.

Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which established ten new federal district courts, expanding the number of circuit courts from three to six, and adding additional judges to each circuit, giving the President the authority to appoint Federal judges and justices of the peace.

Facts

On his last day in office, President John Adams named 42 justices of the peace and sixteen new federal circuit court justices. One of the appointees was John Marshall, a dedicated Federalist and President John Adams' Secretary of State. The Act was a blatant attempt by the Federalists to take control of the federal judiciary before Democrat-Republican President Thomas Jefferson took office.

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 and author of this opinion), but they were not delivered before the expiration of Adams's term as president. Because the appointments were routine in nature, Secretary of State John Marshall assumed that the incoming Secretary of State James Madison would see they were delivered, since "they had been properly submitted and approved, and were, therefore, legally valid appointments."[Sec 3d] After being sworn into office, President Thomas Jefferson ordered his Secretary of State not to deliver the remaining appointments.

Because the appointments were not delivered by the end of Adams's term, President Thomas Jefferson claimed that they were invalid and refused to honor the commissions as President. Because the commissions were not honored, the intended appointees could not assume the powers and duties of their appointed offices.

After the 7th Congressional term started, the newly elected Congress, which was majority Democrat-Republican, passed the Judiciary Act of 1802, which effectively voided and repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801. The result was a reversion of the judiciary system to the conditions it operated under the Judiciary Act of 1789. The new Congress also canceled the Supreme Court term scheduled for June of that year in an attempt to delay the Supreme Court's ruling on the constitutionality of the Judiciary Act of 1802.

William Marbury, the plaintiff, was an intended recipient of an appointment as justice of the peace. Marbury applied directly to the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of mandamus to compel Jefferson's Secretary of State, James Madison, the Defendant, to deliver the commissions. The Judiciary Act of 1789 had granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus "…to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States." (Const. Art. III)

Issue

Narrowly, the issues were whether Marbury had a right to the commission, whether the laws of the country gave Marbury a legal remedy, whether asking the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus was the correct legal remedy, and whether the Supreme Court has authority to issue writs of mandamus? (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803), p. 1). On a larger level, the case examined whether Congress could expand the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Holding

Did Marbury have a right to the commission?

The Court held that Marbury had a right to the commission. The order granting the commission takes effect when the Executive's constitutional power of appointment has been exercised, and the power has been exercised when the last act required from the person possessing the power has been performed. The grant of the commission to Marbury became effective when signed by President Adams.

Did the law afford Marbury a legal remedy for the failure to deliver him the commission?

The Court held that the law grants Marbury a remedy. The Court reasoned that, "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." (Marbury v. Madison)

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 on the commission 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.

-Does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus?

No. The Court found that the Supreme Court did not have original jurisdiction to issue a writ of Mandamus. The Court reasoned that, in order for the Court to issue a mandamus, the writ of Mandamus must either be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable the Court to exercise appellate jurisdiction.

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 case. Although, therefore, a mandamus may be directed to courts, yet to issue such a writ to an officer for the delivery of a paper is, in effect, the same as to sustain an original action for that paper, and is therefore a matter of original jurisdiction.

-Does Congress have the power to expand the scope of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction?

The Court held that Congress does not have the power to expand the scope of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction.

The Constitution states that "the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction." If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the Legislature to apportion the judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, this section is mere surplusage and is entirely without meaning. If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and original jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction made in the Constitution, is form without substance.

-Does the Supreme Court have the authority to review acts of Congress?

The Court held that the Supreme Court has the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional.

The Court reasoned that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each." (Marbury v. Madison).

Justice Marshall explains by referring pointing to the primacy of the Constitution as the law of the land. "If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution as superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply." By associating the Supreme Court with the Constitution, Justice Marshall reframes the dispute as being between Congress and the Constitution instead of Congress and the Supreme Court.

Discussion

The holding in Marbury v. Madison had a huge influence on the power of the Federal Government, the power of the Judiciary, and the interpretation of the United States Constitution. Marbury v. Madison can be seen as an elaboration on the doctrine of Separation of Powers, a The Power of the Federal Government over State Governments

Justice Marshall, a Federalist, had an important interest in increasing the power of the Federal Judiciary, especially at the expense of the Legislative Branch. The Federal Judiciary was an exclusively Federal institution, whereas the National Congress was a collection of politicians elected to represent their respective states' interests. Thus, judicial review meant the power of the Federal Judiciary over the States' representatives to the Federal Government.

The Federal Judiciary gained an important power over the States in another way, through the judicial review of laws created by State legislatures. The Constitution gave the Supreme Court the responsibility to uphold the Constitution as the "Supreme Law of the Land," that is, supreme against Federal laws and State laws. Although each State had its own State Constitution and a Judiciary tasked with upholding the Constitution, State laws that violated the Federal Constitution could be overturned by a Federal court.

The Power of the Judiciary Relative the Legislative and Executive Branches

The Framers of the Constitution viewed the Judiciary as a Check on the other two branches, not necessarily as a dynamic force in itself. In the Federalist Paper No. 78, James Madison wrote that "…the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution . . . [it] may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments." (Federalist No. 78)

Although the Framers believed that the Judiciary was meant to have a limited role, it did appear, as Justice Marshall implied, that the Supreme Court was meant to be the mouthpiece for the Constitution. "A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents." (Federalist No. 78)

The Judiciary and its Relationship with the Popular Electorate

The Judiciary is the only branch of the Federal Government not popularly elected. The Federal Judiciary is appointed by the President, the head of the Executive Branch. The appointment must also gain the approval of Congress before becoming effective. However, at no point in the process does the popular electorate have a say. In a very important sense, the Judiciary can be seen as the least democratic of the three branches of government.