Supreme Court Case Study

Marbury v. Madison

Supreme Court Case Study

Every year Supreme Court provides decision in cases that really impact the American citizen's rights. The aim of this analysis is to keenly check cases handled by the Supreme Court and the way they were given their final verdict. The parties involved sometimes get that the cases favor them or not depending on the existing laws or even through undermining the constitution. The case in the United state law involving Marbury v. Madison,5 U.S. 137 (1803). This case created the basis for implementation of judicial review in the United States under Article III within the constitution. It became the first time in the history of the Western where a court invalidated a law through terming it as unconstitutional.

From the appointments made by President John Adams, William Marbury was appointed federal justice of peace. Nevertheless, Thomas Jefferson became the President prior to Marbury being officially appointed. Jefferson who was a republican instructed the state secretary so that the appointment should not be delivered. This made Marbry to sue Madison. He stated that the court should issue a writ of mandamus, instructing Madison to deliver the appointment. This was according to Judicial Act which was giving authority to the U.S. Supreme court to issue such writ. The issue was, if the U.S. Supreme court has power based on Article III. Section 2. Within the constitution, to interpret the law or statute constitutionality which was passed by Congress? The decision of the court was that the request of Marbury for a writ of mandamus was based on the passed law by Congress that the court passed to be unconstitutional. Therefore it was declared that the federation law contradicted the constitution, however the supreme law of the land is constitution and it should reign supreme. Because of this case John Marshall who was the Chief Justice established the power of judicial review. This was the power of the court not just to interprate the law or statute constitutionality but as well to carry out the process plus enforcing its decision.

This case is similar to the case of Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304. 4 L. Ed. 97.1 Wheat. 304. 1818 U.S. LEXIS 333 (1816)[footnoteRef:1], where the issue was whether the U.S. Supreme Courts have appellate jurisdiction over state court decision involving law? The rule was 'YES'. This was according to Article III. Section 2, Clause 2, Of the U.S. Constitution. The fact was that the Virginia state enacted legislation at the time of Revolution war that provided the state with the authority to confiscate the British Loyalists. Hunter was offered a grant of land by the State. Martin held the land under Lord Thomas Fairfax devise. In terms of ejectment, the trial court gave judgment in support of Martin and it was reversed by the court of appeal. The U.S. Supreme court reversed favoring Martin, indicating that the treaty with England superseded the statute of the state, therefore remanded the case to Virginia court of appeal in order to provide judgement for Martin but the Virginia court turned down, affirming that the appellate power of the Supreme court of U.S. did not extend to Viginia court of appeals judgment. The argument was that judges are suppose to be bound to uphold the constitution as applied to federal judges, therefore denying state interpretation showed that the judges of the state would not interprate the Constitution faithfully. The court indicated that the matter was of requirement of uniformity in terms of federal laws. Another case which applies to this is Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 72 S.Ct. 863, 96 L.Ed. 1153 (1952)[footnoteRef:2]. [1: Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304. 4 L. Ed. 97. 1 Wheat. 304. 1818 U.S. LEXIS 333 (1816) (concurring opnion)] [2: Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 72 S.Ct. 863, 96 L.Ed. 1153 (1952).(concurring opinion) ]

Criticism

Many questions are to be raised to the reasoning of opinion of Marshall. One can argue that Marshall choicely cited the 1789 Judicial Act, interpreting it in a manner that gives the Supreme Court authority to hear the original jurisdiction of writs of mandamus. One might say indicate that minimal relationship is there between the idea of the Supreme Court and the original jurisdiction, and realizes that the Act tends to emphasize on the power of the Court to just exercise appellate jurisdiction. The argument is that the Supreme Court was suppose to provide the writ on original jurisdiction as derived from Article III of the constitution which gave it the right on original jurisdiction review. Every case that was involving consuls and public ministers was supposed to fall within consul or public minister category.