Marbury v. Madison is the most important decision issued by the early republican Supreme Court. It established that the Supreme Court of the United States can exercise the power of judicial review—the power to declare governmental acts unconstitutional. The decision also represented a contest between the Democratic-Republican Party, which controlled the presidency and dominated Congress, and the judiciary, which included many Federalist Party judges.
On the heels of the Judiciary Act of 1801, by which President John Adams acquired the power to appoint 16 new federal judges, Adams signed legislation creating a new court for Washington, D. C. This act became law on February 27, 1801, four days before Adams left office and empowered Adams to appoint three more federal judges and numerous marshals, clerks, attorneys, and justices of the peace. Adams and his secretary of state, John Marshall, signed commissions naming Federalist Party members to these positions, but not all the commissions were delivered to the intended officeholders before Thomas Jeeeerson was sworn in as president. Among those who did not receive his commission was William Marbury, who had been named a justice of the peace for the District of Columbia. When Jefferson took office, his secretary of state, James Madison, refused to deliver Marbury’s commission, and Marbury filed suit in the Supreme Court of the United States, asking the court to issue a writ of mandamus (a court order that stated “we command”) ordering Madison to turn over his commission.
Marbury’s case was unusual. In filing the action directly with the Supreme Court, he relied on that court’s having what the Constitution calls “original” jurisdiction—the jurisdiction to preside over the trial of a case—as opposed to “appellate” jurisdiction—the jurisdiction to preside over an appeal. The Constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to exercise original jurisdiction in only a few types of cases, including cases involving ambassadors, cases between states, and the like. Marbury, however, could point to Section 13 of the Judiciary Act oe 1789, which authorized the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus in cases involving public officers.
The Supreme Court thus had three issues to resolve: Did it have jurisdiction to hear the case? Had Madison done anything wrong? And was a mandamus order the appropriate remedy? In a move derided by contemporaries as political, Chief Justice Marshall (who might well have recused himself, as he had signed Marbury’s commission) answered the last two questions first. Madison, he held, had wronged Marbury by failing to deliver his commission, and under the Judiciary Act of 1789 mandamus was an available and appropriate remedy. The administration of Thomas Jefferson, in short, had got it wrong. Madison had failed in his public duties, and William Marbury had been injured. Pursuant to the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Supreme Court would be acting within it rights by ordering the secretary of state to deliver the commission. Had Marshall issued the writ, of course, it is not clear that Madison would have obeyed it. A constitutional crisis of the first order would have been precipitated. Could the judiciary tell the executive what to do? The answer of the Jeffersonians, who controlled both the presidency and the Congress, might well have been “no.” In this case, what future did the Supreme Court have? Understanding this, John Marshall opted to lose the battle and win the war. The Supreme Court would not issue Marbury’s writ of mandamus, but not because the facts did not warrant it, or because the statute did not allow it. It would not order Madison to deliver Marbury’s commission because in granting the Supreme Court the authority to issue writs of mandamus against public officials in the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress had passed an unconstitutional act. The Supreme Court, therefore, was without jurisdiction.
Marbury v. Madison was an astonishing opinion. It was the first case in which the Supreme Court exercised the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. The Jeffersonians counterattacked by impeaching Justice Samuel Chase and threatening to impeach the Supreme Court’s entire Federalist Party component. So effective was this counterattack that the Marshall Court never again invalidated a federal statute. But the opinion was on the books, and generations would look to it as the defining moment in the Supreme Court’s establishment as the guardian of the Constitution. In modern times, the power is exercised regularly, and for many it defines the central role of the Supreme Court.
Further reading: Robert Lowry Clinton, Marbury v. Madison: The Origins and Legacy of Judicial Review (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1986); Donald O. Dewey, Marshall versus Jefferson: The Political Background of Marbury vs. Madison (New York: Knopf, 1970); William
E. Nelson, Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2000).
—Lindsay Robertson
World History
