Marbury v Madison was a landmark 1803 Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review. William Marbury sued Secretary of State James Madison after not receiving his judicial commission from President Adams. Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that while Marbury had a right to his commission, the Supreme Court did not have the power to force Madison to deliver it under the Judiciary Act of 1789, as that section of the act unconstitutionally expanded the Court's original jurisdiction. However, the ruling established that the Supreme Court has the authority to review the constitutionality of laws and invalidate those deemed unconstitutional, increasing the Court's power.

1. Marbury v Madison

2. What is the background of the case: who was
involved, what happened to bring the case to court, where did the case
take place, when did the case take place, what other background information
is important to know about the case?
Before President Jefferson took office, President Adams appointed justices of peace in the District of Columbia
and Alexandria in Virginia. The appointments were confirmed by the Senate on March 3, 1801, the day before
Thomas Jefferson became president. Before the deadline, when Jefferson took office on March 4, the
Secretary of State, James Madison, had to deliver the commissions (formal appointments) to the justices of
peace that President Adams appointed. Without the commission the justices could not start working in their
new jobs. However, when Jefferson took office, some of the justices did not receive their appointments. One of
them, William Marbury, then brought a law suit against James Madison. He filed an original action in the
Supreme Court under Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and wanted a writ of mandamus to compel
Madison to deliver his formal appointment. But since President Jefferson did not think that the Court could
force him to deliver the commissions, the Secretary of State, Madison, refused to appear before the Court.
Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Marshall, a President Adams’ appointee, saw this case as an opportunity
to establish a legal president. The Supreme Court found that Marbury had the right to receive his commission/
formal appointment and noted that the wrong that was done to him should be made right. However, the Court
declared the Constitution the Supreme law of the land and due to the fact that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act
of 1789 violated Section III of the Constitution, the Supreme Court ruled that they did not have to power to
order Madison to give Marbury his commission. However, they ruled that the Judiciary Act of 1789 did give the
Supreme Court the power of judicial review. This gave the Court the power to invalidate Acts of the executive
and legislative branches which they found unconstitutional.

3. Why was this case important? What Constitutional
issues were questioned in this case?
This case was important, because increased the power of the Supreme Court through
judicial review. Chief Justice John Marshall used this case to define the power of the
Supreme Court. Although the Court limited its power in this case by not issuing a writ of
Mandamus under Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Court gave itself much
more power through the process of judicial review. In the specific case the court had to
decide whether they could order the Secretary of State to give a commission to
Marbury. The Court ruled that Marbury had a right to his commission and a legal
remedy for the wrong that was done to him. However, since Marbury brought his action
under Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 which the Court found to be in conflict
with the Constitution, the Court ruled that it did not have the power to order the
Secretary of State to issue Marbury his commission. The Court made the important
ruling that a law that is in conflict with the Constitution is invalid. The Supreme Court
established that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and this gave the Court
the power to review Acts by the other to branches to determine whether they are
Constitutional.

4. What were other cases related to this case (either before or
after) that were affected?
Marbury v. Madison influenced the Court’s decisions in Brown v. Board of
Education and Bush v. Gore. In Brown v. Board of Education the Supreme
Court exercised its power of judicial review. The Court declared that racial
segregation in public schools were in conflict with the fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution. Therefore the Supreme Court declared
the law of the state government which allowed segregation in public
schools based on race, unconstitutional. In Bush v. Gore the Supreme
Court again used its power of judicial review. The Court ruled that the
manual recounts of ballots were unconstitutional and thereby reversed the
judgement of the Supreme Court of Florida. The Court’s power to review
Acts passed by the executive branch and Congress continue to have a
huge impact on controversial issues today.

5. Who wrote the important opinions (both Dissenting
and Majority), and what important Constitutional
points came from these?
In the case Marbury v Madison, chief justice, Marshall delivered and wrote the opinion of this unanimous decision. The Court
found that there were three requirements that had to be met before a justice of peace could officially start working in this
position. First he had to be nominated by the president, then appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the
senate and then a commission had to be granted and delivered to the appointee. The Court examined the evidence that
Marbury was nominated by the president, confirmed by the Senate and that the commission was signed by the president and
sealed. It ruled that the delivery of the commission did not impinge on Marbury’s rights and therefore Marbury had a right to his
commission and a legal remedy for the wrong that was done to him. However, Marbury brought his action under Section 13 of
the Judiciary Act of 1789 which the Court found to be in conflict with the Constitution. Since the Constitution is the supreme law
of the country, a law in conflict with the Constitution is invalid. Under article III of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has original
jurisdiction over political disputes that affect ambassadors or in which one of the 50 states is a party. Since Marbury was neither
an ambassador nor a State Government, he could not bring an original action in the Supreme Court under Section 13 of the
Judiciary Act. Chief Justice Marshall also noted that if the Court allowed this action, it would unjustly enlarge the Supreme
Court’s original jurisdiction in violation of the Constitution. Therefore the Supreme Court did not have the power to order the
Secretary of State to issue Marbury his commission. The Court then explored whether they could overturn unconstitutional laws.
Marshall argued that members of the legislative and executive branches could not objectively evaluate whether their passed
legislation are constitutional, but that it was the historical role of the courts to interpret and apply the law. Consequently, the
Supreme Court ruled that it has the authority to interpret the Constitution and review executive actions and legislative acts.
Therefore with this decision in Marbury v Madison, the Supreme Court acquired the power of judicial review which gave the
Court the power to nullify acts of the executive and legislative branches that it found to be unconstitutional. Judicial review is an
important part of checks and balances within the federal government. It gives the Supreme Court (judicial branch) equal (and
sometimes even more) power than the legislative and executive branches.

6. What has been the lasting effect of this
case on American jurisprudence?
The lasting effect of this case is undeniable. Marbury v Madison
defined the role of the Court. It ruled that the Constitution is the
Supreme law of the land and introduced the doctrine of judicial
review. With Judicial review the Supreme Court has the final
authority to decide Constitutional questions and interpret the
Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States has the
power and authority to decide whether the Acts of the executive
and legislative branches are constitutional and therefore valid.
The Court has become an equal partner in government with the
power to declare acts of Congress and the president
unconstitutional and consequently invalid.

7. After reviewing the case, what is your opinion of the verdict?
What evidence have you based this opinion on?
The Case of Marbury v Madison, gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review which has positive and negative
implications. The Supreme Court with its nine judges hears cases that relate to the Constitution. They have to determine the
Constitutionality of the acts of the legislative and executive branches in other words they have to interpret the laws according to
the Constitution. They became the final authority to check that the other two branches of government act according to the
Constitution. In effect the actions of the other two branches are now subject to review by the Court and if the Court interprets that
it believes it is not in line with the Constitution the Court can declare the actions invalid. The positive effect of this case is that the
Supreme Court of the United States acts as a “check and balances” system for the other two branches of the US government to
ensure that the other two branches and states do not make laws or take actions that is unconstitutional. For instance in Brown v.
Board of Education the Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in public schools were in conflict with the fourteenth
Amendment. In this case the Supreme Court’s judicial review of the case stabilized and supported American democracy.
However, there is a negative side to giving too much power to the Supreme Court. The Founding Fathers specifically gave the
legislative power to Congress, because Congress members are elected by the people to represent them. The American people
have a say in who is representing them and if the Congress members act in a way that is against the will of the American people
the people would replace them in the next election. In contrast, the Supreme Court Justices are appointed positions. (nominated
by the president and ratified by the senate) Therefore these nine judges are not directly elected by the people and are lifelong
appointments with no “check and balance” system to hold them accountable for their decisions. The power of the Supreme
Court was already recognized by Franklin D. Roosevelt that wanted to “pack the Court” when the judges was declaring some of
his New Deal programs unconstitutional. The importance of controlling the Court is still evident today as Republicans and
Democrats will vote for a president that promises he will appoint Supreme Court judges that represent their viewpoints. If personal
political views are so prevalent and important when appointing judges, it is difficult to trust that the judges will somehow upon
appointment impartially and without prejudice “interpret” the Constitution.

8. Sources
Truman Library
https://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/teacher_lessons
/3branches/1.htm
Law Cornell
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/judicial_review
US Courts
http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/judicial-
review.pdf
National Paralegal
https://nationalparalegal.edu/JudicialReview.aspx