Marbury v. Madison
History and Facts
In his final days in office, John Adams made a batch of "Midnight Judges" appointments, including William Marbury as a Justice of the Peace in D.C., confirmed by the Senate. But his commission was never delivered before Jefferson took office. The new Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver it, and Marbury sued.
Two questions: does Marbury have a right to his commission, and does the Supreme Court have authority to order its delivery?
Marshall's Dilemma
Chief Justice John Marshall, ironically the outgoing Secretary of State who'd failed to deliver the commission in the first place, faced a bind: ruling for Marbury risked Jefferson simply ignoring the Court, embarrassing it publicly. Ruling for Madison would suggest the executive branch could ignore the law.
The finesse: Marshall ruled Marbury was entitled to his commission, but that the Court couldn't grant it, because the part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that gave the Court this power was itself unconstitutional, since it improperly expanded the Court's original jurisdiction.
Establishing Judicial Review
This was the first time the Court struck down a congressional law. Judicial review was never explicitly granted by the Constitution, the Court essentially claimed this power for itself. Marshall famously wrote, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is."
Rationale: the Supremacy Clause makes the Constitution superior to ordinary legislation, so it's the Court's job to strike down any law that conflicts with it.
Big picture
Judicial review turned the Supreme Court into the referee of American government. Before Marbury, the Court was just another participant in the system; after it, the Court gained the power to nullify actions by Congress or the President that violate the Constitution.
Case Brief for the FRQ
- Year: 1803
- Facts: Jefferson's Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver William Marbury's commission as a justice of the peace, so Marbury asked the Supreme Court to order its delivery.
- Constitutional question: Does Marbury have a right to his commission, and can the Supreme Court order it delivered? Underneath that: can the Court strike down an act of Congress that conflicts with the Constitution?
- Holding: Unanimous (4-0), opinion by Chief Justice John Marshall. Marbury had a right to his commission, but the Court couldn't order its delivery, because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutionally added to the Court's original jurisdiction. The Court struck down that part of the law.
- Reasoning: The Constitution is the supreme law, so an act of Congress that conflicts with it is void. Since it's the courts' job "to say what the law is," judges have to refuse to enforce an unconstitutional law.
- Clause or principle: Judicial review; Article III (original jurisdiction); the Supremacy Clause; checks and balances.
- Course connections:
- Unit 1 (1.1, 1.6): EK 1.1.A.2 and EK 1.6.A.1, judicial review is the courts' main check on Congress and the president, which keeps government limited.
- Unit 2 (2.8, 2.11, 2.15): EK 2.8.A.1, the judicial power in Article III and Hamilton's defense of judicial review in Federalist No. 78; EK 2.11.A.1, the debate over judicial activism and restraint is a debate over how to use this power; EK 2.11.B.1, the Court depends on the other branches to carry out its rulings, which is why Marshall avoided giving an order Jefferson could ignore; EK 2.15.B.1, power is spread across three branches.
- Unit 4 (4.1): EK 4.1.A.1, rule of law, even the president's cabinet has to follow the law.
- Compare with: Every case where the Court strikes down a law uses the power Marbury established, like U.S. v. Lopez (a federal gun law) and Citizens United v. FEC (part of a federal campaign finance law). McCulloch v. Maryland is the other big Marshall Court case that built up a national institution, Congress instead of the Court.