Marbury v. Madison

Marbury v. Madison Case Brief

I. The Facts of the case:

Several weeks before Thomas Jefferson's inaguration as 3rd United States President in 1801, lame-duck President John Adams passed the District of Columbia Act. The District of Columbia Act authorized the appointment of 42 new justices of the peace. President Adams personally made the nominations and the Senate confirmed the appointments. Secretery of State John Marshall wasn't able to deliver all of the commissions to the would-be justices. The aforementioned situation is typically know as the appointment of the "midnight justices." Upon entering the presidency on March 4, 1801, President Thomas Jefferson instructed Secretery of State James Madison to hold back the delivery of the justices appointments. As a result William Marburry and three of Adams' other appointees filed suit against Secretery of State James Maddison for faliure to deliver the comissions. Marbury and his counterparts wanted the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus (order by a court to a public official directing performance of a nondiscretionary act).

II. The law:

William Marburry and the others proposed that the Supreme Court issue a writ of madamus , ordering Madison to issue the commissions for their justice positions.

III. Decision:

In Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous (4-0) decison that Marbury had a right to his commission but that the court couldn't issue the writ of mandamus. The court's main goal was to answer 3 distinct questions. The first was if Marbury had a right to his comission. The answer to this is yes, he certainly did. The second question was if the national laws give Marbury legal remady. In respose to this Chief Justice Marshall stated that "The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right." At this point evaluation of a third question was needed, whether or not the Supreme Court had the right to issue the writ. When examining the third question Marshall first turned to the Judiciary Act of 1798 and later Article III of the United States Constitution. Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1798 states that "The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states, in the cases herein after provided for; and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts . . . and writs of mandamous. . . to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States." The power to issue a writ of mandamous as described in this excerpt is a power falling into the category that would have to apply to origional jursdiction. This case is an example of one in which the included in the possible cases of origional jursdiction noted in Article III of the constitution, "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 the other Cases before mentioned [within the judicial power of the United States], the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."However the court is powerless to act because the ability to issue a writ of assistance is clearly not entitled to the court in the Constitution. In order for this action to take place the court's right to issue a writ of mandamous would have to be stated in Article III of the Constitution or in an ammendment to the constitution. By asserting that a statute was null and void the court sucessfully used what became formalized as judicial review for negative reasons in a case.