Plaintiffs
William Marbury, William Harper, Robert R. Hooe, Dennis Ramsay
Defendant
James Madison, U.S. Secretary of State
Plaintiffs' Claim
That Madison had illegally refused to deliver judicial commissions to their rightful recipients.
Chief Lawyer for Plaintiffs
Charles Lee
Chief Defense Lawyer
Levi Lincoln, U.S. Attorney General
Justices for the Court
Samuel Chase, William Cushing, John Marshall (writing for the Court), WilliamPaterson, Bushrod Washington
Justices Dissenting
None (Alfred Moore did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
24 February 1803
Decision
Plaintiffs could not force Madison to deliver the commissions because the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional.
Significance
Marbury v. Madison may be the most important case in American history,because it established the principle of judicial review.
In the late eighteenth century and the early nineteenth century, the two parties dominating the American political scene were the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. In the presidential election of 1800, the Electoral College had a tie vote, and it fell to the House of Representatives to decide theoutcome. After a bitter battle and 36 ballots, on 17 February 1801 the Housevoted for the Democratic-Republican candidate, Thomas Jefferson.
The outgoing president, the Federalist John Adams, had as his secretary of state the distinguished lawyer John Marshall. In January of 1801, Adams securedMarshall's nomination as chief justice of the Supreme Court. Marshall was sworn in on 4 February, but continued to serve as Adams's secretary of state until 3 March, when Adams's term ended. Meanwhile, Adams and the Federalists inCongress had been moving to pack the federal judiciary with as many new Federalist judges as possible before the Jefferson administration took power.
As part of the Federalists' effort to preserve their control over the judicial arm of government, on 27 February 1801 Congress gave Adams the power to appoint justices of the peace for the District of Columbia. On 2 March, one daybefore the end of his term, Adams appointed 42 justices of the peace, and Congress approved their appointments the next day. As secretary of state, Marshall signed and sealed the necessary judicial commissions, but the commissionswere not delivered by the end of 3 March. Jefferson's term began on 4 March,and he ordered his new secretary of state, James Madison, not to deliver thecommissions. Jefferson decided to view the commissions as invalid unless delivered.
Marbury Goes to Court
Having demonstrated his power, Jefferson ultimately allowed most of the Adamsappointees to take their offices. One of the appointees that Jefferson did not allow to take office, William Marbury, filed a petition with the Supreme Court on 16 December 1801 requesting that the Supreme Court order Madison to deliver Marbury's commission. Marbury was joined by three other disappointed appointees, William Harper, Robert R. Hooe, and Dennis Ramsay. Of course, by now Marshall had been the chief justice for over nine months. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Supreme Court had the power to issue the order Marbury requested, called a writ of mandamus.
On 18 December 1801 Marshall ordered a hearing on Marbury's petition, to takeplace at the Court's next session. The Court's next session did not occur until the Court's February Term of 1803. The hearing began on 10 February 1803.Charles Lee, a Federalist and former attorney general, represented Marbury and the others. Jefferson's attorney general, Levi Lincoln, represented Secretary of State Madison.
Charles Lee argued that Madison, as secretary of state, was not only an official of the executive branch, bound to obey the president, but a public servant obligated to perform his duty and deliver Marbury's lawful commission. Therefore, the Court must exercise its authority under the Judiciary Act to issuea writ of mandamus against Madison. Lincoln said practically nothing,except that the issue of the commissions was purely political and thus not subject to the judiciary.
Marshall Proclaims the Doctrine of Judicial Review
On 24 February 1803 Marshall issued the Court's opinion. Marshall proceeded in three steps. First, he reviewed the facts of the case. Marshall stated thatMarbury had the right to receive his commission:
Second, Marshall analyzed Marbury's legal remedies. He concluded that the Judiciary Act clearly entitled Marbury to the writ of mandamus he requested. Marshall's third and final question, therefore, was whether the writ of mandamus could be issued by the Supreme Court. Although the Judiciary Act would allow the Court to issue the writ, Marshall was concerned about theCourt's authority under Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, which states:
If the Court did not have original jurisdiction, then under the ConstitutionMarbury could not go directly to it to get his requested writ of mandamus. He would have to go to a federal district court, and only if he lost there could he then appeal to the Supreme Court under its appellate jurisdiction. As Marshall stated:
Marshall now addressed the critical question of whether the Court would use the authority that the Judiciary Act granted it, but that the Constitution denied it, to issue Marbury's writ of mandamus. Marshall said no, it would not. No act of Congress, including the Judiciary Act, could do something forbidden by the Constitution:
Therefore, because the Judiciary Act violated the Constitution, it was unenforceable. Marbury and the others could not get their writ of mandamus from the Court because their petition had been sent to the Court directly, noton appeal. In declaring the Judiciary Act unconstitutional, Marshall set forth for the first time the doctrine of judicial review. Judicial review meansthat the federal courts, above all the Supreme Court, have the power to declare laws unenforceable if they violate the Constitution:
Marshall's decision meant that the Court would not give his fellow FederalistMarbury the writ of mandamus. Nevertheless, it was a brilliant move.In refusing to confront Jefferson, Marshall had asserted a new and potent power for the judiciary, namely the doctrine of judicial review. Despite variousissues, such as whether Marshall should have removed himself from the case because of his role as Adams's secretary of state, Marbury v. Madison permanently established the principle of judicial review. This power to overturn unconstitutional laws is the basis for the courts' power today to preventsuch evils as civil rights violations.
Related Cases
Justice Alfred Moore
Although he was a member of the Supreme Court at the time of Marbury v. Madison, Associate Justice Alfred Moore (1755-1810) did not take part in that historic decision. His five years on the Court (1799-1804) were unremarkable, and he wrote only one recorded opinion.
The son of a colonial judge in North Carolina, Moore studied law and was admitted to the bar at age 20. He fought in the Revolutionary War as a soldier and saboteur. He served on the North Carolina legislature in 1782 and 1792, andhe held the position of attorney general for his home state. He argued the case of Bayard v. Singleton (1787), a state case that, as Marbury v.Madison would do, touched on the then-controversial issue of judicial review.
Moore led his state in ratifying the U.S. Constitution in 1788. He stepped down from his position as attorney general to protest the creation of a state solicitor general position. He lost a race for the senate in 1795 by a marginof just one vote.
In 1799, President John Adams nominated him to the U.S. Supreme Court, but Moore's poor health caused him to miss the judicial review debates that included Marbury v. Madison. His sole opinion was in Bas v. Tingy (1800), on an undeclared naval conflict between the United States and France. In1804 Moore retired from the Court and died six years later in North Carolina.Among his other achievements was the establishment of the University of North Carolina.
Sources
West's Encyclopedia of American Law St. Paul, MN: West Group, 1998.
William Marbury, William Harper, Robert R. Hooe, Dennis Ramsay
Defendant
James Madison, U.S. Secretary of State
Plaintiffs' Claim
That Madison had illegally refused to deliver judicial commissions to their rightful recipients.
Chief Lawyer for Plaintiffs
Charles Lee
Chief Defense Lawyer
Levi Lincoln, U.S. Attorney General
Justices for the Court
Samuel Chase, William Cushing, John Marshall (writing for the Court), WilliamPaterson, Bushrod Washington
Justices Dissenting
None (Alfred Moore did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
24 February 1803
Decision
Plaintiffs could not force Madison to deliver the commissions because the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional.
Significance
Marbury v. Madison may be the most important case in American history,because it established the principle of judicial review.
In the late eighteenth century and the early nineteenth century, the two parties dominating the American political scene were the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. In the presidential election of 1800, the Electoral College had a tie vote, and it fell to the House of Representatives to decide theoutcome. After a bitter battle and 36 ballots, on 17 February 1801 the Housevoted for the Democratic-Republican candidate, Thomas Jefferson.
The outgoing president, the Federalist John Adams, had as his secretary of state the distinguished lawyer John Marshall. In January of 1801, Adams securedMarshall's nomination as chief justice of the Supreme Court. Marshall was sworn in on 4 February, but continued to serve as Adams's secretary of state until 3 March, when Adams's term ended. Meanwhile, Adams and the Federalists inCongress had been moving to pack the federal judiciary with as many new Federalist judges as possible before the Jefferson administration took power.
As part of the Federalists' effort to preserve their control over the judicial arm of government, on 27 February 1801 Congress gave Adams the power to appoint justices of the peace for the District of Columbia. On 2 March, one daybefore the end of his term, Adams appointed 42 justices of the peace, and Congress approved their appointments the next day. As secretary of state, Marshall signed and sealed the necessary judicial commissions, but the commissionswere not delivered by the end of 3 March. Jefferson's term began on 4 March,and he ordered his new secretary of state, James Madison, not to deliver thecommissions. Jefferson decided to view the commissions as invalid unless delivered.
Marbury Goes to Court
Having demonstrated his power, Jefferson ultimately allowed most of the Adamsappointees to take their offices. One of the appointees that Jefferson did not allow to take office, William Marbury, filed a petition with the Supreme Court on 16 December 1801 requesting that the Supreme Court order Madison to deliver Marbury's commission. Marbury was joined by three other disappointed appointees, William Harper, Robert R. Hooe, and Dennis Ramsay. Of course, by now Marshall had been the chief justice for over nine months. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Supreme Court had the power to issue the order Marbury requested, called a writ of mandamus.
On 18 December 1801 Marshall ordered a hearing on Marbury's petition, to takeplace at the Court's next session. The Court's next session did not occur until the Court's February Term of 1803. The hearing began on 10 February 1803.Charles Lee, a Federalist and former attorney general, represented Marbury and the others. Jefferson's attorney general, Levi Lincoln, represented Secretary of State Madison.
Charles Lee argued that Madison, as secretary of state, was not only an official of the executive branch, bound to obey the president, but a public servant obligated to perform his duty and deliver Marbury's lawful commission. Therefore, the Court must exercise its authority under the Judiciary Act to issuea writ of mandamus against Madison. Lincoln said practically nothing,except that the issue of the commissions was purely political and thus not subject to the judiciary.
Marshall Proclaims the Doctrine of Judicial Review
On 24 February 1803 Marshall issued the Court's opinion. Marshall proceeded in three steps. First, he reviewed the facts of the case. Marshall stated thatMarbury had the right to receive his commission:
To withhold hiscommission, therefore, is an act deemed by the court not warranted by law, but violative of a vested right.
Second, Marshall analyzed Marbury's legal remedies. He concluded that the Judiciary Act clearly entitled Marbury to the writ of mandamus he requested. Marshall's third and final question, therefore, was whether the writ of mandamus could be issued by the Supreme Court. Although the Judiciary Act would allow the Court to issue the writ, Marshall was concerned about theCourt's authority under Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, which states:
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all other cases . . . the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction . . .
If the Court did not have original jurisdiction, then under the ConstitutionMarbury could not go directly to it to get his requested writ of mandamus. He would have to go to a federal district court, and only if he lost there could he then appeal to the Supreme Court under its appellate jurisdiction. As Marshall stated:
To enable this court, then, to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction . ..
Marshall now addressed the critical question of whether the Court would use the authority that the Judiciary Act granted it, but that the Constitution denied it, to issue Marbury's writ of mandamus. Marshall said no, it would not. No act of Congress, including the Judiciary Act, could do something forbidden by the Constitution:
Certainly all those who have framedwritten constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.
Therefore, because the Judiciary Act violated the Constitution, it was unenforceable. Marbury and the others could not get their writ of mandamus from the Court because their petition had been sent to the Court directly, noton appeal. In declaring the Judiciary Act unconstitutional, Marshall set forth for the first time the doctrine of judicial review. Judicial review meansthat the federal courts, above all the Supreme Court, have the power to declare laws unenforceable if they violate the Constitution:
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 expoundand interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.
Marshall's decision meant that the Court would not give his fellow FederalistMarbury the writ of mandamus. Nevertheless, it was a brilliant move.In refusing to confront Jefferson, Marshall had asserted a new and potent power for the judiciary, namely the doctrine of judicial review. Despite variousissues, such as whether Marshall should have removed himself from the case because of his role as Adams's secretary of state, Marbury v. Madison permanently established the principle of judicial review. This power to overturn unconstitutional laws is the basis for the courts' power today to preventsuch evils as civil rights violations.
Related Cases
- Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816).
- Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821).
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).
- Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983).
- Honda v. Oberg, 512 U.S. 415 (1994).
Justice Alfred Moore
Although he was a member of the Supreme Court at the time of Marbury v. Madison, Associate Justice Alfred Moore (1755-1810) did not take part in that historic decision. His five years on the Court (1799-1804) were unremarkable, and he wrote only one recorded opinion.
The son of a colonial judge in North Carolina, Moore studied law and was admitted to the bar at age 20. He fought in the Revolutionary War as a soldier and saboteur. He served on the North Carolina legislature in 1782 and 1792, andhe held the position of attorney general for his home state. He argued the case of Bayard v. Singleton (1787), a state case that, as Marbury v.Madison would do, touched on the then-controversial issue of judicial review.
Moore led his state in ratifying the U.S. Constitution in 1788. He stepped down from his position as attorney general to protest the creation of a state solicitor general position. He lost a race for the senate in 1795 by a marginof just one vote.
In 1799, President John Adams nominated him to the U.S. Supreme Court, but Moore's poor health caused him to miss the judicial review debates that included Marbury v. Madison. His sole opinion was in Bas v. Tingy (1800), on an undeclared naval conflict between the United States and France. In1804 Moore retired from the Court and died six years later in North Carolina.Among his other achievements was the establishment of the University of North Carolina.
Sources
West's Encyclopedia of American Law St. Paul, MN: West Group, 1998.
User Comments Add a comment…