Introduction:
- Marbury v. Madison is a landmark case in United States constitutional law that established the principle of judicial review, which empowers the Supreme Court to strike down unconstitutional laws. The case was heard by the Supreme Court in 1803 and is widely considered to be one of the most significant decisions in American legal history. The case arose from a dispute over the appointment of William Marbury, a prominent Federalist, to a justice of the peace position in the District of Columbia.
- In this case, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Judiciary Act of 1789, which granted the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus, was unconstitutional, this is because it sought to expand the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond what the Constitution permitted. The decision was a significant departure from the traditional understanding of the role of the judiciary in the United States, and it established the Supreme Court’s power to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress.
- The Marbury v. Madison case has been the subject of much scholarly analysis and debate, with legal scholars examining the implications of the decision for the role of the judiciary in American democracy. As one commentator notes, “Marbury v. Madison is rightly regarded as the most important decision in American constitutional law, because it established the principle of judicial review and thereby made the Supreme Court the final arbiter of the Constitution.”
- The impact of the Marbury decision has been far-reaching, as it has helped to shape the constitutional balance of power in the United States and has provided the foundation for much of the Court’s subsequent jurisprudence. Moreover, the decision has been used to uphold civil liberties and to strike down laws that infringe upon those liberties, making it a critical tool for protecting individual rights and liberties in the United States.
- Overall, the Marbury v. Madison case represents a seminal moment in American legal history, and its legacy continues to shape the way in which the Constitution is interpreted and applied in the United States today.
Facts of the case:
- William Marbury was one of several individuals who had been appointed by President John Adams to positions in the District of Columbia just before Adams left office.
- These appointments were made under the authority of the Judiciary Act of 1801, which was passed by the outgoing Federalist Congress in an effort to pack the courts with Federalist judges before the incoming Democratic-Republican administration of Thomas Jefferson took office.
- However, many of these appointments, including Marbury’s, were not delivered before Jefferson was inaugurated, and Jefferson ordered his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver them.
- Marbury filed a lawsuit against Madison, seeking a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court to force Madison to deliver his commission.
- Marbury argued that the Supreme Court had the power to issue such a writ under the Judiciary Act of 1789, which had granted the Court the power to issue writs of mandamus in cases involving federal officers.
- However, the Court’s decision turned on the question of whether that grant of power was constitutional.
Issue raised:
The following are the main issues raised in the case,
- Whether William Marbury is entitled to the commission he received from President John Adams, and whether he has a legal right to the position of Justice of the Peace for the District of Columbia? (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 166 (1803))
- Whether the Supreme Court has the power to issue writs of mandamus to public officials, including the Secretary of State, to compel them to perform their duties? (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 173 (1803))
- Whether the Judiciary Act of 1789, which granted the Supreme Court jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, is unconstitutional because it extends the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond what is allowed by the Constitution? (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 178 (1803))
- Whether the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power of judicial review, which allows it to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional? (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803))
Contentions of the Petitioners:
- Petitioner argued that the Judiciary Act 1789 gave the Supreme Court the power to make mandates in certain cases. Specifically, Section 13 of the Act states: “The Supreme Court shall have power to issue writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.” (1 Stat. 73)
- The petitioners had a legal right to their commissions as justices of the peace in the District of Columbia, which had been signed by President John Adams and sealed by Secretary of State John Marshall before Adams left office. (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 158 (1803))
- The petitioner said, although the commissions were not delivered before the end of Adams’ term, they were still valid and effective. The act of signing and sealing them constituted a completed appointment, and delivery was a mere formality. (Id. at 159)
- Petitioner said that the secretary of State James Madison’s refusal to deliver the commissions was a violation of the petitioners’ rights, and the Supreme Court had the power to remedy this violation by issuing a writ of mandamus. (Id. at 160)
- They claim that the power of the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus in this case was not inconsistent with the Constitution. The Constitution did not explicitly grant the Court this power, but it did not explicitly prohibit it either. Moreover, the power was necessary to enable the Court to fulfill its role as a check on the other branches of government. (Id. at 173)
Overall, the Petitioners argued that they had a legal right to their commissions and that the Supreme Court had the power to enforce that right by issuing a writ of mandamus. They relied heavily on the Judiciary Act of 1789 as the source of the Court’s authority, and they also argued that the Court’s power to issue such writs was necessary to ensure that the other branches of government did not exceed their constitutional authority.
Contentions of the Respondents:
- The respondent argued that Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction over the case: The respondents argued that the Supreme Court did not have the power to issue a writ of mandamus to William Marbury because the Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorized the Supreme Court to issue such writs, was unconstitutional. They argued that the Constitution did not give Congress the power to give the Supreme Court jurisdiction in this matter.
- They claim that the appointment was not valid: The respondents argued that Marbury’s appointment as justice of the peace was not valid because President John Adams had not completed the necessary paperwork before leaving office. They argued that the appointment was not official until the commission was delivered, and since it was not delivered, Marbury was not a justice of the peace.
- The respondent said the case was a political question: The respondents argued that the case was a political question that should be left to the executive and legislative branches of government, rather than the judiciary. They argued that the Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate the courts, and that the courts should not interfere with the political decisions of the other branches.
- They claims that the remedy sought was inappropriate: The respondents argued that even if Marbury’s appointment was valid and the Supreme Court had jurisdiction, the remedy sought (a writ of mandamus) was inappropriate. They argued that the writ could only be used to enforce a clear legal right, and since Marbury’s appointment was in dispute, there was no clear legal right to be enforced.
Overall, the respondents argued that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction over the case, that Marbury’s appointment was not valid, that the case was a political question best left to the other branches of government, and that the remedy sought was inappropriate.
RATIO DECIDENDI :
- In Marbury v. Madison, the judges agreed on a 4:0 ratio in one aspect of the case and disagreed on a 4:0 ratio in another aspect.
- The agreed ratio was that Marbury had a legal right to his commission as justice of the peace, and that this right was established by the commission signed by President Adams before he left office. However, the judges also agreed that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus (a court order requiring a government official to perform a specific duty) to enforce Marbury’s right to his commission. This was because the relevant law that gave the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus (the Judiciary Act of 1789) was unconstitutional.
- The disagreed ratio was about whether the Supreme Court had the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional. Four of the judges (including Chief Justice Marshall) agreed that the Supreme Court did have this power, while the fifth judge (Justice William Cushing) did not express an opinion on the matter. This established the principle of judicial review, which is the power of the Supreme Court to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.
JUDGEMENT:
The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, held that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that authorized the Court to issue writs of mandamus was unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that the Constitution did not grant the Court the power to issue such writs, and that the grant of such power in the Judiciary Act of 1789 was therefore null and void.
The Court’s decision was based on a number of constitutional principles.
- First, the Court held that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land, and that any law that was inconsistent with the Constitution was invalid.
- Second, the Court held that it was the duty of the judiciary to interpret the Constitution and to ensure that the other branches of government acted in accordance with its provisions.
- Finally, the Court held that the Constitution established a system of checks and balances, in which each branch of government had limited powers that were designed to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful.
Impact:
- The decision in Marbury v. Madison had a profound impact on American constitutional law. It established the principle of judicial review, which holds that the Supreme Court has the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. This principle has become a cornerstone of American constitutional law, and has been used by the Court to strike down numerous laws over the years.
- In addition to establishing the principle of judicial review, the decision in Marbury v. Madison also had a significant impact on the balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. By establishing the power of the judiciary to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional, the Court created a powerful check on the power of the legislative branch. This has helped to ensure that the other branches of government act in accordance with the Constitution, and has helped to maintain the balance of power between the three branches.
Conclusion:
The significance of Marbury v Madison is that it established the principle of judicial review.This principle has become a bedrock of American constitutional law, giving the Supreme Court the power to strike down laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution. Judicial review has been used by the court to protect individual rights and to prevent abuses of power by the other branches of government. The Supreme Court has relied on judicial review to strike down laws that violate the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, among other provisions of the Constitution.
Marbury v. Madison is a landmark case that established the principle of judicial review, which has become a fundamental part of the American legal system. The case demonstrates the important role that the Supreme Court plays in interpreting the Constitution and protecting individual rights. It also illustrates the importance of the separation of powers and the checks and balances that are built into the American system of government. The decision in this case has had far-reaching implications for American law and politics and continues to shape the way that the Supreme Court approaches constitutional questions today.
