Presidents and the Supreme Court: Marbury v. Madison
Today is the first Monday in October, which traditionally marks the opening day of the sittings of the Supreme Court of the United States. If you visit the United States Supreme Court building in Washington. DC, you will see a display about the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison, a famous decision in which the Court established the basis for the exercise of judicial review under Article III of the Constitution. A quote from the case is literally etched in stone. The decision helped to set the boundary between the executive and judicial branches of the American form of government.
The case came about as the result of a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed as a Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia by President John Adams after Adams had been defeated in the election of 1800 but was still President. Marbury's commission was not delivered following the election of Thomas Jefferson. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to force the new Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the documents.
The Court, with John Marshall as Chief Justice, held that Madison's refusal to deliver the commission was illegal. But it also ruled that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that enabled Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional. Marbury's petition was therefore denied. So why is the case such a big deal then? Read on MacDuff.
In the election of 1800, Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican, defeated Adams, a Federalist. Although the election was decided on February 17, 1801, Jefferson did not take office until March 4, 1801. Until that time, Adams was still President and the Federalists still controlled Congress. During this lame-duck session, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801. This Act amended the Judiciary Act of 1789 and created ten new district courts, expanded the number of circuit courts from three to six, and added additional judges to each circuit, giving the President the authority to appoint Federal judges and justices of the peace. The act also reduced the number of Supreme Court justices from six to five, effective upon the next vacancy in the Court. On March 3, just before his term was to end, Adams appointed 16 Federalist circuit judges and 42 Federalist justices of the peace to offices created by the Judiciary Act of 1801. These appointees, known as the "Midnight Judges", included William Marbury, a Federalist from Maryland. He had been appointed to the position of justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. The term for a justice of the peace was five years.
On the following day, all the appointments were approved by the Senate, but the commissions had to be delivered to those appointed. This duty belonged to John Marshall, who, even though recently appointed Chief Justice of the United States, continued as the acting Secretary of State under President Adams. Marshall was also the cousin of President-Elect Thomas Jefferson, a fellow Virginian.
A majority of the commissions were delivered, but it proved impossible for all of them to be delivered before Adams's term as president expired. Marshall assumed the new Secretary of State James Madison would see they were delivered, but President Jefferson ordered Levi Lincoln, who was the new Attorney General and acting Secretary of State, not to deliver the remaining commissions. In Jefferson's opinion, the undelivered commissions, not having been delivered on time, were void. The newly sworn-in Democratic-Republican 7th Congress immediately voided the Judiciary Act of 1801 with their own Judiciary Act of 1802 which reversed the act of 1801.
On February 24, 1803, the Court rendered a unanimous (4–0) decision, that Marbury had the right to his commission but the court did not have the power to force Madison to deliver the commission. Chief Justice Marshall wrote the opinion of the court. Marshall broke the case down into three questions:
1. Did Marbury have a right to the commission?
2. Do the laws of the country give Marbury a legal remedy?
3. Is asking the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus the correct legal remedy? (A writ of mandamus is a court order which requires a public official to take a certain action.)
Marshall quickly answered the first two questions in the affirmative. Marshall said: "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 legal right." Marshall found that delivering the appointment to Marbury was a function required by law, and therefore the law provided him a remedy.
In answering the third question, Marshall concluded that a writ of mandamus was the correct judicial means to order an official of the United States (in this case, the Secretary of State) to do something required of him (in this case, deliver a commission). So far so good for Marbury.
Marshall noted a conflict between the Judiciary Act, which gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over writs of mandamus, and Article III of the Constitution, which defines the Supreme Court's jurisdiction (which did not include originating jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus). Marbury argued that the Constitution was only intended to set a floor for original jurisdiction that Congress could add to. Marshall disagreed and held that Congress does not have the power to modify the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. Marshall found that the Constitution and the Judiciary Act conflict and that the Constitution prevailed. The case is an important one because Marshall held that Acts of Congress that conflict with the Constitution are not law and the Courts are bound instead to follow the Constitution. Because of this, Marbury could not get his remedy at the Supreme Court. (It had to come from a lower court, in which case, the Supreme Court could uphold that court's decision.)
Thomas Jefferson was still not happy with Marshall's reasoning. He felt that it placed too much authority in the judicial branch of government. He wrote to Marshall:
"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
Subsequent critics of the decision have argued that, since the Constitution lacks a clear statement authorizing the Federal courts to nullify the acts of other branches of government, no such power exists. But because of this decision, judicial review has been an accepted part of American law.
In the end, the case established the basic right of review by the courts of decisions of the executive branch. But poor William Marbury never did get to be a judge.
The case came about as the result of a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed as a Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia by President John Adams after Adams had been defeated in the election of 1800 but was still President. Marbury's commission was not delivered following the election of Thomas Jefferson. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to force the new Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the documents.
The Court, with John Marshall as Chief Justice, held that Madison's refusal to deliver the commission was illegal. But it also ruled that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that enabled Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional. Marbury's petition was therefore denied. So why is the case such a big deal then? Read on MacDuff.
In the election of 1800, Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican, defeated Adams, a Federalist. Although the election was decided on February 17, 1801, Jefferson did not take office until March 4, 1801. Until that time, Adams was still President and the Federalists still controlled Congress. During this lame-duck session, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801. This Act amended the Judiciary Act of 1789 and created ten new district courts, expanded the number of circuit courts from three to six, and added additional judges to each circuit, giving the President the authority to appoint Federal judges and justices of the peace. The act also reduced the number of Supreme Court justices from six to five, effective upon the next vacancy in the Court. On March 3, just before his term was to end, Adams appointed 16 Federalist circuit judges and 42 Federalist justices of the peace to offices created by the Judiciary Act of 1801. These appointees, known as the "Midnight Judges", included William Marbury, a Federalist from Maryland. He had been appointed to the position of justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. The term for a justice of the peace was five years.
On the following day, all the appointments were approved by the Senate, but the commissions had to be delivered to those appointed. This duty belonged to John Marshall, who, even though recently appointed Chief Justice of the United States, continued as the acting Secretary of State under President Adams. Marshall was also the cousin of President-Elect Thomas Jefferson, a fellow Virginian.
A majority of the commissions were delivered, but it proved impossible for all of them to be delivered before Adams's term as president expired. Marshall assumed the new Secretary of State James Madison would see they were delivered, but President Jefferson ordered Levi Lincoln, who was the new Attorney General and acting Secretary of State, not to deliver the remaining commissions. In Jefferson's opinion, the undelivered commissions, not having been delivered on time, were void. The newly sworn-in Democratic-Republican 7th Congress immediately voided the Judiciary Act of 1801 with their own Judiciary Act of 1802 which reversed the act of 1801.
On February 24, 1803, the Court rendered a unanimous (4–0) decision, that Marbury had the right to his commission but the court did not have the power to force Madison to deliver the commission. Chief Justice Marshall wrote the opinion of the court. Marshall broke the case down into three questions:
1. Did Marbury have a right to the commission?
2. Do the laws of the country give Marbury a legal remedy?
3. Is asking the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus the correct legal remedy? (A writ of mandamus is a court order which requires a public official to take a certain action.)
Marshall quickly answered the first two questions in the affirmative. Marshall said: "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 legal right." Marshall found that delivering the appointment to Marbury was a function required by law, and therefore the law provided him a remedy.
In answering the third question, Marshall concluded that a writ of mandamus was the correct judicial means to order an official of the United States (in this case, the Secretary of State) to do something required of him (in this case, deliver a commission). So far so good for Marbury.
Marshall noted a conflict between the Judiciary Act, which gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over writs of mandamus, and Article III of the Constitution, which defines the Supreme Court's jurisdiction (which did not include originating jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus). Marbury argued that the Constitution was only intended to set a floor for original jurisdiction that Congress could add to. Marshall disagreed and held that Congress does not have the power to modify the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. Marshall found that the Constitution and the Judiciary Act conflict and that the Constitution prevailed. The case is an important one because Marshall held that Acts of Congress that conflict with the Constitution are not law and the Courts are bound instead to follow the Constitution. Because of this, Marbury could not get his remedy at the Supreme Court. (It had to come from a lower court, in which case, the Supreme Court could uphold that court's decision.)
Thomas Jefferson was still not happy with Marshall's reasoning. He felt that it placed too much authority in the judicial branch of government. He wrote to Marshall:
"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
Subsequent critics of the decision have argued that, since the Constitution lacks a clear statement authorizing the Federal courts to nullify the acts of other branches of government, no such power exists. But because of this decision, judicial review has been an accepted part of American law.
In the end, the case established the basic right of review by the courts of decisions of the executive branch. But poor William Marbury never did get to be a judge.