Introduction to Legal Analysis

Citation:

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

Parties:

William Marbury/Petitioner v. James Madison, Secretary of State/Respondent

Objectives of the Parties:

To have their commissions as justices of the peace issued to them.

Theories of the Parties:

That the commissions were issued in compliance with the law and that Madison has no legal right to withhold them.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court the authority to issue a writ of mandamus ordering Madison to issue the commissions.

History of the Litigation:

This case was argued before the Supreme Court on February 11, 1803, and decided on February 24, 1803. This case was not brought before any lesser courts.

Facts:

Marbury and his fellow petitioners were nominated to the positions of justices of the peace, who hold a five-year term. Marbury was to be a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. These nominations were approved by the Senate. The commissions were signed by then-President Adams, and the seal of the United States was affixed to the commissions by the Secretary of State.

The commissions were not delivered before the newly elected president and his cabinet took office on March 4, 1801.

The petitioners requested that the new Secretary of State, Madison, deliver their commissions to them, but he had not done so. The petitioners then requested reasons why they were not to be given their commissions, and no satisfactory answer has been given by the Secretary of State or anyone in the state department.

The petitioners then appealed to the Secretary of the Senate and the Senate for a certificate of nomination for the applicants, but both declined to issue one.

Issues:

1. Do the applicants have a right to the commissions they demand?

2. If they have a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of their country afford them a remedy?

3. If they do afford them a remedy, is it mandamus issuing from this court?

Holding:

1. Do the applicants have a right to the commissions they demand? – Yes

2. If they have a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of their country afford them a remedy? – Yes

3. If they do afford them a remedy, is it a writ of mandamus issued from this court? – No

Reasoning:

The court held that the appointment was made upon the president's signing of the commission and that the commission is complete and valid once the Secretary of State affixes the seal of the United States to it.

Marbury’s commission (and those of his fellow petitioners) was valid, and since the law allowed the justice of the peace a term of five years and could not be removed by the president at his will, but could only be accepted or rejected by the person appointed, then Marbury and his fellow petitioners were entitled to receive their commissions.

Therefore, Marbury and his petitioners have a right to their commissions, and that right was violated when those commissions were not issued to them.

Given that these duties were legally given by the law and then denied by the law, the injured parties have a right to request that the country that made those laws give them a remedy for the denial of the rights given to them by legally appointed commissions.

The final question then became whether the court had the jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus forcing Madison to deliver the commissions.

The  Supreme Court found a conflict between Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 which gave the Supreme Court a broad jurisdiction which included the authority to issue a writ of mandamus and Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution  which limits the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to cases affecting ambassadors, public officials where a state is a party and to controversies between two or more States or Citizens of different states.

The Court decided that it has the duty to determine which law prevails when two laws conflict. In deciding this, based on the fact that the judges swear an oath to the Constitution and that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land” (“WILLIAM MARBURY V. JAMES MADISON, Secretary of State of the United States.”), Then the Constitution should override any law made outside it. This made the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, and therefore, the court was unable to issue a writ of mandamus ordering Madison to deliver the commissions.

Disposition:

Marbury and his fellow petitioners are entitled to their commissions; the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to compel Madison to issue them because the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional.

Additional Notes:

There were no dissents in this case, given that there were only 6 Justices on the Supreme Court at the time, and two of them recused themselves. This case established the Supreme Court’s authority to decide whether laws passed by Congress were constitutional (judicial review), giving the Supreme Court equal power with the other branches of government. Later, in 1948 Congress passed 28 U.S. Code § 1651 – Writs which gave the Supreme Court and all courts established by Congress the authority to issue any writs necessary (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 944; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 90, 63 Stat. 102.), which had this law been in effective at the time it may have allowed the Supreme Court to issue the commissions directly to the petitioners.

Citation:

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

Facts:

Marbury and his fellow petitioners were nominated to the positions of justices of the peace, who hold a five-year term. Marbury was to be a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. These nominations were approved by the Senate. The commissions were signed by then-President Adams, and the seal of the United States was affixed to the commissions by the Secretary of State.

Issues:

1. Do the applicants have a right to the commissions they demand?

2. If they have a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of their country afford them a remedy?

3. If they do afford them a remedy, is it mandamus issuing from this court?

Holding:

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. No

Reasoning:

The court held that the appointment was made upon the president's signing of the commission and that the commission is complete and valid once the Secretary of State affixes the seal of the United States to it.

Therefore, Marbury and his petitioners have a right to their commissions, and that right was violated when those commissions were not issued to them.

The  Supreme Court found a conflict between Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 which gave the Supreme Court a broad jurisdiction which included the authority to issue a writ of mandamus and Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution  which limits the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to cases affecting ambassadors, public officials where a state is a party and to controversies between two or more States or Citizens of different states.

The Court decided that it has the duty to determine which law prevails when two laws conflict. They decided that the Constitution is the highest law.  This made the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, and therefore, the court was unable to issue a writ of mandamus ordering Madison to deliver the commissions.

Disposition:

Marbury and his fellow petitioners are entitled to their commissions; the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to compel Madison to issue them because the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional.