Case Brief

Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Author: Bram
Relevant Facts: PL Marbury was appointed a justice of the peace at the very end of Adams presidential term, one day before the changing of the guard (3/4/1801), and the appointment was pushed through and confirmed by the Senate. The new administration obtained a repeal of the statute creating the courts and refused to grant Marbury's commission. Marbury sued incoming Secretary of State James Madison in the Supreme Court for a writ of Mandamus.
Marbury contends (1) the Court had the jurisdiction to rule on such a matter;
(2) Madison violated federal statutory and constitutional rules by withholding the commission; and (3) the mandamus was an appropriate remedy.
Issue: Under Constitutional law, is the Supreme Court the appropriate court to adjudicate whether a federal commission to serve as a justice of the peace could stand under a new political term?
Under constitutional law, does the new political term's officers action of denying a previously confirmed appointment under the previous term violate any statutes or rules?
Under constitutional law, is a writ of mandamus an appropriate means to compel the Court to grant a confirmation by a previous President?
Holding: (1) Yes. The Constitution is the law of the land, and all other laws are subservient to it.
(2) Yes. Marbury had vested a legal right in the commission for the term as justice, a right which was not revocable.
(3) Yes, Mandamus was the appropriate legal remedy, for there was no other under the law for Marbury at the time of the suit, other than to go the Federal route in seeing his appointment and subsequent confirmation followed through.
Court's Rationale/Reasoning: The court may enforce with mandamus because the court has been granted the power under the constitution to use its power when the right claimed is one given by a law of the United
States. Otherwise, the Court has mere appellate jurisdiction. However the Constitution does not grant such a power.
So the court must decide here, the means in which to govern: where the constitution may take a back seat to other law, or where the constitution holds
overall precedent. Either way, the law or the constitution, must apply totally to the case at hand. In short, it would be betrayal to the very meaning of what the framers of the constitution intended. The constitution must be observed first and foremost; everything else is subservient to it. Both the legislature and executive branches support this ideal.
Rule: The Secretary of State is a person whose actions fall under the scope of the Judicial Act of 1789. Mandamus is the appropriate remedy for the Court to use to enforce its authority on any courts appointed, persons holding office in the United States.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)
Author:- J. Self
Facts: During the last 6 months of his term, President Adams made many “midnight appointments” including a judgeship for William Marbury. In the confusion of the Adams administration’s last days in office, Mars hall, the outgoing secretary of state, failed to deliver Marbury’s commission. Under the new (Jefferson) administration, James Madison was the new secretary of state and, under orders from Jefferson, refused to deliver Marbury’s commission. Marbury sued to order by writ of mandamus that his commission be delivered.
Issues: 1) Should Marbury be issued his commission? 2) If so, and his right to the commission has been violated, does the law offer him relief? 3) If he should be relieved in some way, is it by the court issuing a mandamus? 4) The underlying issue being what is the duty of the court when the Constitution and the law are in conflict?
Decision: 1) Yes 2) Yes 3) No, because the case is beyond the court’s jurisdiction 4) The duty of the court is to decide whether a law acts within the bounds of the constitution.
Reasoning of Opinion: Marshall, for the Court:
1) Since the President had signed and sealed Marbury’s commission, then the circumstances surrounding the lack of delivery of the commission should not have any influence on the validity of the commission.
2) There was a specific duty assigned by the law—to deliver the commission—and that duty was not performed. Therefore, the person whose rights were violated by the omission of the duty has the right to seek relief in the law (e.g. sue).
3) The court does have the right to issue mandamus to persons holding office, and certainly the secretary of state would be such a person, but the law prohibits the court from authorizing such a writ and therefore since the law is in conflict with the constitution, the law is void.
4) If both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, the court must determine whether the law or the constitution should be upheld, therefore granting the court judicial review.
Marbury v. Madison
U.S. Supreme Ct. 1803
Author: Sam Biers
Civil
Facts: President Adams, as he was leaving approved several positions with the Senate. Four appointments were left on a desk where the incoming President Jefferson ordered Sec. Of St. to refuse to deliver. William Marbury, one of the appointees, filed suit with the Supreme Court on a Writ of Mandamus (orders public official to perform duty under the law).
Issue: Is the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional? Can the Court affirm Marbury’s right to the appointment and grant the Writ of Mandamus?
Holding: The Judiciary Act, Section 13 is subservient to the Constitution of the United States. Marbury has the right to sue under the Writ of Mandamus.
Reasoning: If the framers had intended to give Congress discretionary power to change the court’s jurisdiction, they would not have needed to define the court’s jurisdiction in the Constitution. Hence, the Constitution not the Judicial Act of 1789, is the applicable law of the land. The court does not have the authority to grant the Writ of Mandamus as a legal remedy under the Constitution.
Plaintiff might argue: The Judicial Act bestows authority on the Supreme Court to determine questions of law, directly, concerning executive conflicts in the U.S. Defendant: The Constitution cannot be used to render political decisions. The Judicial Act cannot confer legal rights already enumerated by the Constitution.
Rule: The Constitution of the United States is the Law of the Land. All other laws in conflict with the Constitution are void. The Constitution defines and limits the power and authority of the government.
Marbury v. Madison
2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)
Author: Lindsey
Rule:Established right to judicial review. Congress may neither restrict nor enlarge the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.
Relevant Law
U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2 Clause 2
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and
those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original
Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases [within the judicial power of the United
States], the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law
and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress
shall make."
Judiciary Act of 1789, § 13
"The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit
courts and courts of the several states, in the cases herein after provided for;
and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts...and
writs of mandamus...to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under
the authority of the United States."
Facts
Before leaving office, Adams, a Federalist, appointed a bunch of Federalist judges. Although the commissions were signed by Adams, some of the
justice-of-the-peace nominations (including Marbury’s) were left undelivered when Jefferson took office the next day. Jefferson, a Republican, refused to deliver Adam’s commissions.Marbury sued to order by writ of mandamus that his commission be delivered.
Issues
1.Does P have a right to the commission?
2.If P has a right, and that right has been violated, does the law afford him a remedy?
3.Is P entitled to the writ for which he applies?
a.This depends on:
i. The nature of the writ applied for
ii. The power of the Supreme Court
1.The Judiciary Act gives the SC the right to issue a mandamus, but this is outside
the scope of the Constitution. So, does Article III give an exhaustive list for
original jurisdiction or can Congress add to it?
b. Note, if Marshall decided this question first (the question of whether the court has jurisdiction), the answer would be no and that would be the end of it. But he doesn’t decide this question first because then he wouldn’t be able to go on to talk about judicial review
4.What is the duty of the court when the Constitution and the law are in conflict? Holding
1.Yes, P has a right to the commission.
a.The commission was signed by the President and the law gives the officer a right to hold office for five years. The appointment, as a matter of law, is not revocable.
b.BUT, the promise with this argument is that with personal property, you don’t actually have a right to it until it’s delivered to you.
c.Note that there’s a question as to whether he’s guaranteed to hold the position for five years. He could just be appointed for up to five years, in which case the President has the option t o fire him after he’s appointe
d.
2.Yes, he has a right to recover damages.
3.
a.There was a duty assigned by law (to deliver the commission) and that
duty was not performed. Therefore, the person whose rights were
violated by the omission has the right to seek relief with the courts.
4.No, P is not entitled to the writ because the case is beyond the court’s
jurisdiction.
5.
a.The Judiciary Act gives the Courts the right to issues writs of
mandamus but this Act gives powers outside the scope originally
assigned in Article III of the Constitution
i. Actually, the Judiciary Act doesn’t say specifically that it’s giving original jurisdiction. It only says you can issue writs of mandamus. And since this is in the same sentence as the mention of appellate jurisdiction (there’s a semicolon between them), the Act might mean that the Court is allowed to use writs of mandamus in
cases of appellate jurisdiction. This reading makes a lot more sense because it means that Congress is not expanding SC’s original jurisdiction an d thus the Act would still be constitutional. (of course, Marbury would have to refile in a lower court and appeal to the SC for a writ of mandamus).
ii.When given the choice between interpreting it as constitutional and an interpretation that is unconstitutional, he interprets the latter because it allows him to establish judicial review.
iii.This is strange- you think he would be eager to interpret it in the easiest way possible. But there are political ramifications for Marshall–he’d have to tell J efferson what to do and Jefferson has already said he won’t enforce it.This would be a very bad precedent.
3.
b.So the question to be decided is if Article III’s original jurisdiction list
is exhaustive, or is Congress allowed to add to that list to give the
Court further power?
i. Irreducible minimum theory: Article III §2 says that the SC should have original jurisdiction in these specific cases, and “in all other cases” they should have appellate jurisdiction. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that the Congress can’t add on to what’s listed.(i.e., “do the dishes” doesn’t imply “don’t do the laundry” but “if you do nothing else, make sure you do the dishes. ii. If Article III's original jurisdiction is an exhaustive list, but Congress tries to modify it anyway, who wins that conflict, Congress or the Constitution? And, more importantly, who is supposed to decide who wins? In his answer to this last question, Marshall creates the notion of judicial review of congressional statutes.
1.The duty of the court is to decide whether a law acts within the bounds of the Constitution. If both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, the court must determine whether the law or the constitution should be upheld, therefore granting the court judicial review.
Ultimate ruling: Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. Congress can not pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the federal courts to interpret what the Constitution permits.
Reasoning
Reasons why a law repugnant to the Constitution is invalid:
A.Supremacy Clause: Art VI § 2 –law of the land is “Constitution and laws
made in pursuance thereof.”Marshall interprets “pursuance thereof” as
meaning “law not repugnant to the Constitution”.
B.
a. A more modest interpretation would be “in the manner (process) set
forth by the Constitution.”
C.Written document: there’s a reason why framers chose to write certain
provisions. Why would they write restrictions on their jurisdiction if they
meant that it could be enlarged?
D.Either paramount or ordinary: Either the Constitution is paramount in that it
overrules any law repugnant to it or it is ordinary in that it can be overruled by any legislative act
E.
a.It doesn’t have to be either one or the other.The middle ground is that
the constitution stands until it is amended.
F.Purpose: what’s the purpose of our written constitution other than to have a set
of laws to be followed
G.
a.Just because its written doesn’t mean it strikes down inconsistent
provisions. There are situations in Canada (not withstanding clause)
and Great Britain (Magna Carta) where written documents do not
necessarily strike down inconsistent arguments.
Judgment
Judiciary Act (the Circuit Court Act) is repealed.。