The Case of Marbury Vs Madison in 1803 Established the Supreme Courts Power of Judicial Review

Portrait of William Marbury.
The landmark 1803 example Marbury v. Madison marked the beginning time the Court asserted its role in reviewing federal legislation to determine its compatibility with the Constitution -- the function of judicial review. Above, a portrait of plaintiff William Marbury.

Reproduction courtesy of the Office of the Supreme Courtroom Curator

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Marbury 5. Madison, arguably the most important case in Supreme Court history, was the first U.Due south. Supreme Courtroom case to employ the principle of "judicial review" -- the power of federal courts to void acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution. Written in 1803 by Chief Justice John Marshall, the conclusion played a key role in making the Supreme Court a separate co-operative of government on par with Congress and the executive.

The facts surrounding Marbury were complicated. In the election of 1800, the newly organized Democratic-Republican party of Thomas Jefferson defeated the Federalist party of John Adams, creating an atmosphere of political panic for the lame duck Federalists. In the concluding days of his presidency, Adams appointed a big number of justices of peace for the District of Columbia whose commissions were approved past the Senate, signed by the president, and affixed with the official seal of the regime. The commissions were non delivered, however, and when President Jefferson assumed role March 5, 1801, he ordered James Madison, his Secretary of State, not to deliver them. William Marbury, one of the appointees, then petitioned the Supreme Courtroom for a writ of mandamus, or legal order, compelling Madison to show cause why he should non receive his commission.

In resolving the case, Chief Justice Marshall answered three questions. Offset, did Marbury take a correct to the writ for which he petitioned? Second, did the laws of the United States allow the courts to grant Marbury such a writ? Third, if they did, could the Supreme Courtroom issue such a writ? With regard to the showtime question, Marshall ruled that Marbury had been properly appointed in accordance with procedures established by law, and that he therefore had a right to the writ. Secondly, because Marbury had a legal correct to his commission, the law must afford him a remedy. The Principal Justice went on to say that it was the particular responsibility of the courts to protect the rights of individuals -- even against the president of the United States. At the fourth dimension, Marshall's thinly bearded lecture to President Jefferson near the rule of constabulary was much more than controversial than his statement about judicial review (which doctrine was widely accepted).

It was in answering the third question -- whether a writ of mandamus issuing from the Supreme Courtroom was the proper remedy -- that Marshall addressed the question of judicial review. The Chief Justice ruled that the Court could not grant the writ because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which granted information technology the correct to practice so, was unconstitutional insofar as it extended to cases of original jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction -- the power to bring cases directly to the Supreme Court -- was the only jurisdictional matter dealt with by the Constitution itself. According to Article Three, it applied only to cases "affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls" and to cases "in which the state shall be party." By extending the Courtroom'southward original jurisdiction to include cases like Marbury's, Congress had exceeded it say-so. And when an act of Congress is in conflict with the Constitution, it is, Marshall said, the obligation of the Courtroom to uphold the Constitution considering, by Article 6, it is the "supreme police of the land."

Equally a result of Marshall's decision Marbury was denied his commission -- which presumably pleased President Jefferson. Jefferson was not pleased with the lecture given him by the Principal Justice, however, nor with Marshall's affidavit of the Courtroom's ability to review acts of Congress. For practical strategic reasons, Marshall did non say that the Court was the only interpreter of the Constitution (though he hoped it would be) and he did not say how the Court would enforce its decisions if Congress or the Executive opposed them. But, by his timely assertion of judicial review, the Court began its ascent as an equal co-operative of regime -- an equal in power to the Congress and the president. Throughout its long history, when the Courtroom needed to affirm its legitimacy, information technology has cited Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison.


	Writer'Southward BIO

	Alex McBride is a third year law pupil at Tulane Law Schoolhouse in New Orleans. He is manufactures editor on the TULANE LAW REVIEW and the 2005 recipient of the Ray Forrester Award in Ramble Law. In 2007, Alex will be clerking with Estimate Susan Braden on the United States Court of Federal Claims in Washington.