3.1 Marbury v. Madison

Marbury v. Madison, a pivotal 1803 Supreme Court case, established judicial review in the U.S. This landmark decision gave courts the power to strike down laws conflicting with the Constitution, solidifying the judiciary's role as a co-equal branch of government.

The case arose from a political dispute between outgoing President Adams and incoming President Jefferson. It highlighted the tension between executive power and judicial authority, ultimately shaping the American legal system and the balance of power among government branches.

Marbury v. Madison overview

• Seminal Supreme Court case decided in 1803 that established the principle of judicial review
• Considered a foundational case in U.S. constitutional law and the role of the judiciary
• Solidified the Supreme Court's power to interpret the Constitution and strike down laws or executive actions deemed unconstitutional

Case background and context

Top images from around the web for Case background and context

• 

  Marbury v. Madison: Who makes the definitive interpretation of the Constitution? | Work Within ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Federalism Today | Boundless Political Science View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Election of 1800 | US History I (AY Collection) View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Marbury v. Madison: Who makes the definitive interpretation of the Constitution? | Work Within ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Federalism Today | Boundless Political Science View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Case background and context

• 

  Marbury v. Madison: Who makes the definitive interpretation of the Constitution? | Work Within ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Federalism Today | Boundless Political Science View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Election of 1800 | US History I (AY Collection) View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Marbury v. Madison: Who makes the definitive interpretation of the Constitution? | Work Within ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Federalism Today | Boundless Political Science View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Arose in the aftermath of the contentious 1800 presidential election between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson
• Adams, the outgoing Federalist president, made last-minute judicial appointments, including William Marbury as Justice of the Peace in D.C.
• Jefferson, the incoming Democratic-Republican president, instructed his Secretary of State, James Madison, to withhold Marbury's commission

Judicial review concept

• The power of the courts to review and invalidate laws or executive actions that violate the Constitution
• Before Marbury v. Madison, the concept of judicial review was not explicitly established in the Constitution
• The case affirmed the Supreme Court's role as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution

Constitutional interpretation issues

• The case raised questions about the proper role of the judiciary in interpreting and enforcing the Constitution
• It highlighted the tension between the powers of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches
• The decision set a precedent for the Supreme Court's authority to interpret the Constitution and determine the constitutionality of laws and actions

Key figures in the case

William Marbury

• Federalist appointee named as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia by President John Adams
• Filed a lawsuit directly with the Supreme Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the delivery of his commission

James Madison

• Secretary of State under President Thomas Jefferson
• Refused to deliver Marbury's commission on Jefferson's orders
• Named as the defendant in Marbury's lawsuit

John Marshall

• Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court
• Authored the unanimous opinion in Marbury v. Madison
• Established the principle of judicial review and solidified the Court's role in constitutional interpretation

Legal questions presented

Marbury's appointment by Adams

• Whether Marbury's appointment by President Adams was valid and complete
• The Court found that Marbury's appointment was properly finalized and that he had a legal right to the commission

Madison's refusal to deliver commission

• Whether Madison's refusal to deliver Marbury's commission was lawful
• The Court determined that Madison's withholding of the commission was illegal and violated Marbury's rights

Jurisdiction of the Court

• Whether the Supreme Court had original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus in this case
• The Court examined the Judiciary Act of 1789 and found that the provision granting the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus was unconstitutional

Arguments of the parties

Marbury's legal entitlement claim

• Marbury argued that he had a legal right to the commission once it was signed and sealed by the President
• He claimed that Madison's refusal to deliver the commission violated his rights and sought a legal remedy

Madison's defense

• Madison, under Jefferson's direction, argued that the commission was not fully complete until delivered
• He maintained that the executive branch had discretion over the delivery of commissions

Supreme Court's decision

Opinion of the Court

• The Court, in a unanimous decision written by Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled that Marbury had a legal right to his commission
• However, the Court held that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 granting the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus was unconstitutional

Marshall's reasoning

• Marshall applied a three-part analysis:
  1. Marbury had a legal right to the commission
  2. The laws provided a legal remedy for the violation of that right
  3. The Supreme Court lacked original jurisdiction to issue the requested writ of mandamus

Establishing judicial review

• In finding the Judiciary Act provision unconstitutional, Marshall established the principle of judicial review
• The Court asserted its power to review and invalidate acts of Congress that conflict with the Constitution
• This landmark decision solidified the Supreme Court's role as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution

Impacts of Marbury v. Madison

Judicial review implications

• The establishment of judicial review gave the Supreme Court the power to strike down laws and executive actions deemed unconstitutional
• It positioned the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government, capable of checking the powers of the legislative and executive branches

Separation of powers

• The decision reinforced the principle of separation of powers among the three branches of government
• It emphasized the role of the judiciary in maintaining the balance of power and preventing overreach by the other branches

Checks and balances

• Marbury v. Madison demonstrated the importance of checks and balances in the American constitutional system
• It showcased the ability of the judiciary to act as a check on the actions of the legislative and executive branches

Marbury v. Madison legacy

Landmark case status

• Widely regarded as one of the most important and influential cases in U.S. Supreme Court history
• Established the Supreme Court as a co-equal branch of government and the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation

Shaping American legal system

• The principle of judicial review established in Marbury v. Madison has shaped the development of American constitutional law
• It has allowed the Supreme Court to weigh in on crucial issues and protect individual rights and liberties

Modern relevance and influence

• The legacy of Marbury v. Madison continues to resonate in modern times
• The Supreme Court regularly exercises its power of judicial review to assess the constitutionality of laws and government actions
• The case remains a cornerstone of American jurisprudence and a testament to the enduring importance of the rule of law and the separation of powers