Stare decisis and its role in legal precedent

Stare Decisis

Mr. Edwards was appointed by President Bush as administrator of Federal Environmental Protection Agency. The appointment was complete. However, the commission of his appointment was not delivered to him, and as a result, he could not take this position. Then he learned that Ms. Daisy Thomas working as chief secretary to President was his ex-girlfriend and resented him very much. Perhaps for this personal reason, Ms. Thomas delayed or even refused to make this commission delivered to him. Mr. Edward is thinking about the possibility of taking legal actions, and immediately he remembers Marbury v. Madison and wonders whether he can rely on this case and on the doctrine of stare decisis. You were the son/daughter of a good friend of Mr. Edwards, and you are now going to law school. How would you advice him on the issue of: Can Marbury v. Madison be the precedent to Mr. Edwards' case - if he brings this case to the federal district court? Why and why not?

Even on the surface of its facts, the U.S. Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison is an excellent example of a case that would not seem to support Mr. Edward's claim. On February 27, 1801, days before Jefferson was to take office, Congress passed a bill called the Justice of the Peace Act that provided the lame-duck President John Adams with the opportunity to appoint 42 justices of the peace to five-year terms in Washington and Alexandria. "Most of Adams's nominations went to deserving Federalists, and all were confirmed by the Senate. William Marbury was one of those appointed" by Adams (Grossman 2003).

But as the new President Jefferson wished to exercise his discretion as Chief Executive to make his own nominees, Jefferson ordered his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver Adams' last-minute commissions. "Marbury and several others brought a lawsuit to compel Madison to deliver their commissions. They asked the Supreme Court, in its original jurisdiction, to issue a writ of 'mandamus' -- a court order directing Madison (but really Jefferson) to carry out his lawful and non-discretionary duty to deliver the commissions" (Grossman 2003).

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to grant the writ of mandamus on the grounds that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which had conferred that power on the Court, was unconstitutional. This established the principle of judicial review within the American justice system and also the fact that when a law of Congress and the Constitution are in direct conflict, the Constitution should predominate. Marshall did state that Marbury had a right to the commission: "That by signing the commission of Mr. Marbury, the president of the United States appointed him a justice of peace... And that the seal of the United States, affixed thereto by the secretary of state, is conclusive testimony of the verity of the signature, and of the completion of the appointment; and that the appointment conferred on him a legal right to the office for the space of five years...he [Marbury] has a consequent right to the commission; a refusal to deliver which is a plain violation of that right, for which the laws of his country afford him a remedy" (Marshall 1803). However, "the authority, therefore, given to the supreme court, by the act establishing the judicial courts of the United States, to issue writs of mandamus to public officers, appears not to be warranted by the constitution," so Marshall stated the U.S. Supreme Court had no direct authority to issue the writ under the Judiciary Act.