Marbury v. Madison - The Establishment of Judicial Review

 Marbury v Madison is famous for establishing the doctrine of judicial review by the Supreme Court. 

This case not only detailed how and why judicial review is the proper power of the Supreme Court, this case also:

-  Confirmed the President’s power to appointment Federal Judges during the full duration of his term.

-  Confirmed the separation of powers and limits of legislative powers. 

     After Marbury and several other judges petitioned the Legislature for assistance with their Presidential appointments, the Senate refused to deliver the appointments.  

The Congress had no Constitutional authority to override the President after appointments were complete, nor did they have the authority in the Judiciary Act of 1789 to override the Constitution by adding certain writ of mandamus* powers.

 Background:

  After losing re-election to Thomas Jefferson, John Adams remained in office as President until Inauguration Day on 

March 4, 1801. 

During the interim, Adams and a “lame duck”* Congress passed Judiciary Act of 1801.  

The Judiciary Act of 1801 expanded the federal jurisdiction, eliminated Supreme Court circuit duties, and created sixteen federal circuit court judgeships. 

Adams filled the newly created positions with lifetime judges – He appointed forty-two judges, whom were dubbed the “midnight judges” due to what some considered a very late in his terms action. 

  On March 3, then Secretary of State John Marshall, countersigned the commissions appointed by Adams. 

     On March 4, Thomas Jefferson took office as President and did not allow the deliver of the last four appointments.

Thomas Jefferson (Democrat-Republican Party), and his new Secretary of State, James Madison, considered Adam’s (Federalist Party) actions illegitimate and ignored Marbury’s commission as a refusal to accept Adam’s lifetime appointments.

With the new 1802 term, Democrat-Republicans gained the majority in Congress and repealed the Judiciary Act, abolished the new judgeships and returned jurisdictions under 

the Reorganization Act of 1802.

January 1803 – William Marbury, Robert Townsend Hooe and Dennis Ramsay petitioned the Senate to deliver their appointments, but the new Senate denied their petition 

(13 yea, 15 nays).

Judge Marbury filed a suit asking the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus.* 

The Supreme Court’s writ of mandamus power was authorized by the Judiciary Act of 1789.

(To review Judicial Acts text see Judicial Section)

Vocabulary:

*lame duck – When Congress reconvenes following particular November elections, some law makers (and President) are on their way out of office and won’t be participating in the next term. When these Representatives consider various items of business during the interim period it is referred to as a lame duck (reduced ability/power) Congress.  

*writ of mandamus - an order by a court to an inferior court/entity or government official to compel fulfillment of their duty/obligation.

 Former President John Adam’s former Secretary of State, John Marshall, was appointed Supreme Court Chief Justice in 1801. 

In 1803, when the case was brought to the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall was part of the panel of jurists who would hear and decide the case.  

3 Questions: 

1. Does Applicant have a right to the commission he demands?

2. If Marbury has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of the Country provide a remedy?

3. If they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing from the Court?

Responses:

1. Does Applicant have a right to the commission he demands?

Chief Justice John Marshall handed down the decision. Marshall stated in part:

The delivery of the said commission document was not necessary to validate the appointments of the judges, “it was only evidence of the appointment."

Based on the powers conferred on the President, pursuant to Article II, Section 1 and 2, 

The President did in fact have the authority and exercised said authority. Article II, Section 2 reads in part: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate . . . appoint Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States . . .

The Court stated:

    It is then the opinion of the court, first, that by signing the commission of Mr. Marbury, the president of the United States appointed him a justice of peace, for the county of Washington in the district of Columbia; and that the seal of the United States, fixed thereto by the secretary of state, is conclusive testimony of the verity of the signature, and of the completion of the appointment; and that the appointment conferred on him a legal right to the office for the space of five years. 

Secondly, that, having this legal title to the office, he has a consequent right, to the commission; a refusal to deliver which, is a plain violation of that right, for which the laws of his country afford him a remedy. 

2.  If Marbury has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of the Country provide a remedy? 

The Court found that Marbury had a right to seek help from the Court and the Court had an obligation to assist Marbury in determining what the proper remedy would be to right the wrong.

The Court stated:

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 right.

The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of laws, whenever he receives injury. 

One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection . . .