On February 24, 1803, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, decides the landmark case of William Marbury versus James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States and confirms the legal principle of judicial review—the ability of the Supreme Court to limit Congressional power by declaring legislation unconstitutional—in the new nation.
The court ruled that the new president, Thomas Jefferson, via his secretary of state, James Madison, was wrong to prevent William Marbury from taking office as justice of the peace for Washington County in the District of Columbia. However, it also ruled that the court had no jurisdiction in the case and could not force Jefferson and Madison to seat Marbury. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court jurisdiction, but the Marshall court ruled the Act of 1789 to be an unconstitutional extension of judiciary power into the realm of the executive.
In writing the decision, John Marshall argued that acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution are not law and therefore are non-binding to the courts, and that the judiciary’s first responsibility is always to uphold the Constitution. If two laws conflict, Marshall wrote, the court bears responsibility for deciding which law applies in any given case. Thus, Marbury never received his job.
Jefferson and Madison objected to Marbury’s appointment and those of all the so-called “midnight judges” appointed by the previous president, John Adams, after Jefferson was elected but mere hours before he took office. To further aggravate the new Democratic-Republican administration, many of these Federalist judges–although Marbury was not one of them–were taking the bench in new courts formed by the Judiciary Act, which the lame-duck Federalist Congress passed on February 13, 1801, less than a month before Jefferson’s inauguration on March 4.
As part of the “Revolution of 1800,” President Thomas Jefferson and his Democratic-Republican followers launched a series of attacks against the Federalist-controlled courts. The new Democratic-Republican-controlled Congress easily eliminated most of the midnight judges by repealing the Judiciary Act in 1802. They impeached Supreme Court justice Samuel Chase, but acquitted him amidst inner-party squabbles. The Chase acquittal coupled with Marshall’s impeccably argued decision put an end to the Jeffersonian attack.
Marbury v. Madison: Primary Documents in American History
Have a question? Need assistance? Use our online form to ask a librarian for help.
Chat with a librarian, Monday through Friday, 12-4pm Eastern Time (except Federal Holidays).
Ken Drexler, Reference Specialist, Researcher and Reference Services Division
Created: June 7 2021
Last Updated: June 15, 2021
21st Century Citizenship
The concept of judicial review is an element of our judicial system that few would doubt or criticize in modern times. From the time we first start learning about American government, we are taught about the separations of powers and how each of the three branches of the government keeps the other two in check. We become familiar with stories on the news when Supreme Court opinions are published and an act of Congress either is nullified or confirmed. Why should there be any reason to doubt the role of the Supreme Court and the federal court system to rule whether acts of Congress abide by the Constitution or not?
While this may generally be accepted as one of the major jobs of the Supreme Court today, the Constitution does not explicitly give the Judicial Branch the power of judicial review. Through the establishment of court precedent, however, the ability to declare laws unconstitutional is considered an implied power under Article III and Article VI of the Constitution of the United States.
Selected clauses from Article III state:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . . The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority. . . . In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, 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.
The Supremacy Clause of Article VI states:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. . . . [A]ll executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.
These excerpts of the Constitution have created enough convincing evidence for the landmark case Marbury v. Madison to establish the concept of judicial review that is such an integral part of judicial conduct.
Click here to view a Prezi that describes the setting and details of Marbury v. Madison.
There has been some concern about the powers of judicial review since Marbury v. Madison established a legal hierarchy in the United States with the Constitution reigning as the supreme law. Two Presidents of the time, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, were prominent in criticizing the principle of judicial review. They believed that by making the judicial branch the guardians of the US Constitution, the court would be given a supreme position over the other two branches of government (legislative and execute). In addition, they argued that the Justices were individuals not subject to the rigorous democratic process of election and re-election, and thus, life tenure through only the appointment and confirmation process put too much power in the hands of judges to determine the future of legislation without being fully vetted by the American people. In 1820, Tomas Jefferson expressed his deep reservation concerning the doctrine of judicial review in a letter to William Jarvis where he stated:
“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.”
Several years later, Lincoln cited as evidence that this power brought forth a low point in American democracy with Dred Scott v. Sandford Case in 1857. This case was decided 7-2 against Scott, an African American slave who unsuccessfully sued for his freedom on the assertion that Scott could not bring suit in the federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. The court also overturned the Missouri Compromise arguing that the Compromise deprived plantation owners of their human (legal) property and therefore violated the Fifth Amendment’s clause that states, “. . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
However, since the days of Lincoln and Jefferson, judicial review is now widely accepted in both the political and legal arenas. Though interpreted differently in different jurisdictions, the idea has been exported and integrated into the constitutional fabric of numerous countries such as Brazil and Germany. Today, in the United States, it is the cornerstone of constitutional law however, for the Founding Fathers as they figured out and solidified the governmental system, it was the first major test of the US Constitution. With Marbury came a whole new sense of direction and a new vision of how to shape both a growing America and an America in the 21 st Century.
‘Marbury v. Madison’: Extending the Authority of the Supreme Court
Though the Constitution set up the judiciary, it was later laws and cases that helped establish the powers of the US Supreme Court. (Image: Victor Moussa/Shutterstock)
The Constitution and Congress
First and foremost, there is the authority provided by the United States Constitution. Article I was about the Congress and legislative authority, Article II of the Constitution is about the presidency and executive authority, and we find the terms of judicial authority in Article III.
If we take a look at the text of Article III of the Constitution, we’ll see that the text is quite brief—just three small sections. In short, there is very little guidance in the Constitution that describes exactly how the judicial system will be set up, just that there will be one.
Therefore, the second primary source of judicial authority comes from one of the very first laws the Congress ever passed, known as the Judiciary Act of 1789. This important piece of legislation is how the Congress outlined the form and functions of the federal judicial system. The framework established in this act comprises the foundation of the federal judiciary.
But, there is still one thing on which the Constitution and the Judiciary Act are silent, and that is whether or not the Supreme Court, or any federal court for that matter, has the power to declare laws unconstitutional. That particular, and important, power was established in a very clever twist of history.
The Writ of Mandamus
The power to declare laws unconstitutional is known as judicial review, and it was established in the 1803 case known as Marbury v. Madison. The story of how this came about is pretty gripping. It begins when the Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789. One of the parts of this law granted federal courts the authority to issue what was known as a writ of mandamus.
A writ of mandamus is a court order that directs an official of the government to take a specific legal action. For the first 12 years of America’s existence under the new Constitution, no one challenged, utilized, or even noticed this particular judicial authority.
This is a transcript from the video series Understanding the US Government. Watch it now, Wondrium.
John Adams and Thomas JeffersonJohn Adams appointed a number of federal judges almost overnight, before his presidency ended. (Image: National Gallery of Art/Public domain)
Then, in 1800, there was a presidential election in which the incumbent President John Adams was defeated by his challenger, Thomas Jefferson. Back then, there was a significant lag of several months between when presidential elections were certified on January 6th, and when a new president was inaugurated, in part because transportation and re-location was much more challenging back then.
So, Adams took advantage of this lag period sought. He nominated 32 judges to the federal judiciary and the last-minute nature of these appointments made them known as the ‘midnight judges’.
The Undelivered Commission
At that time, when you were appointed by the president to a post, the Secretary of State delivered the commissions to the appointees. This was John Marshall, but delivering commissions was a physically demanding job, and some commissions could not be delivered before Jefferson was inaugurated. One of the commissions that Marshall delivered was the one that made Marshall himself the chief justice of the Supreme Court. However, a commission that didn’t get delivered was to William Marbury, appointing him a Justice of the Peace.
After Jefferson was inaugurated, he instructed his secretary of state, James Madison, not to deliver the remaining commissions. Then, Marbury sued the federal government requesting that the Court issue a writ of mandamus to force Madison to deliver his commission. The case wound up at the Supreme Court, where John Marshall was now the Chief Justice.
The Ruling in Marbury v. MadisonThomas Jefferson ordered James Madison to stop the delivery of the commissions issued by John Adams. (Image: Rembrandt Peale/ Public domain)
In his ruling, Marshall argued that Marbury had a legal right to his commission because President Adams had legally appointed him to Justice of the Peace. This satisfied Marbury, as well as Adams and his fellow Federalists. However, Marshall also decided that the Supreme Court could not issue the writ of mandamus to compel Jefferson’s Secretary of State, James Madison, to hand over the commission, as the power of the Court to issue the writ was itself unconstitutional.
Marshall reasoned that, when Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, it extended the Court’s jurisdiction beyond what Article III established, and that Congress did not have the power to change the Constitution through legislation. Only a constitutional amendment could provide the Court with more authority of this type, not an act of Congress.
The Expansion of Judicial Review
In ruling that the Court did not have the authority to issue writs of mandamus, Marshall created a much broader power for the Supreme Court— judicial review. By declaring a part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, Marshall set a precedent that the Supreme Court had the power to decide whether or not laws are constitutional. In doing so, Marshall solidified the idea that the Judiciary was a co-equal branch of government.
So, this apparent act of limiting the Court’s power is actually one that expands its power. While the Supreme Court did not exercise its judicial review power all that frequently at first, the case of Marbury v. Madison granted the Supreme Court its most significant authority, which it retains to this day—the power of judicial review.
Common Questions about Marbury v. Madison
The terms of judicial authority in Article III of the Constitution. But there is very little guidance in the Constitution about how the judicial system will be set up, just that there will be one.
Through the Judiciary Act of 1789 , the Congress outlined the form and functions of the federal judicial system. The framework established in this act comprises the foundation of the federal judiciary.
William Marbury was appointed a Justice of the Peace by President John Adams, but his commission was not delivered because the president had changed by then. Marbury sued the federal government, asking the Supreme Court to force James Madison, the Secretary of State, to deliver the commission.
Marbury v. Madison establishes judicial review - HISTORY
Few Supreme Court decisions are as well known or loom as large in our nation's history as Marbury v. Madison. The 1803 decision is widely viewed as having established the doctrine of judicial review, which permits the Court to overturn acts of Congress that violate the Constitution moreover, such judicial decisions are final, not subject to further appeal.
Robert Clinton contends that few decisions have been more misunderstood, or misused, in the debates over judicial review. He argues that the accepted view of Marbury is ahistorical and emerges from nearly a century of misinterpretation both by historians and by legal scholars.
&ldquoThis book is without doubt one of the half dozen recent works that will be central to the scholarly dispute about judicial review.&rdquo
&mdashPolitical Science Quarterly
&ldquoClinton offers a resounding correction of the prevailing orthodoxy on the Marbury case that has dominated scholarship in law, history, and political science for roughly the last century. . . . If he contended only ‘that Marbury was not a political decision but was based on sound constitutional doctrine and existing legal precedent’, this book would still make a quite valuable contribution to the literature. . . . But there is more: the constitutional doctrine and legal precedents Clinton has rediscovered, in which the Marbury ruling is firmly grounded, reveal judicial review to be . . . of profoundly narrower scope than is admitted today by right or left, by originalists or nonoriginalists. . . . Clinton has done [much] to blow away a good deal of fog surrounding Marshall, Marbury, and the scope of judicial power.&rdquo
&mdashReview of Politics
&ldquoAn important book. Clinton’s new and unorthodox look at Marbury v. Madison is interesting, provocative, and controversial. He presents&mdashclearly, forcefully, and persuasively&mdasha great amount of evidence to support his thesis.&rdquo
&mdashSocial Science Quarterly
&ldquoClinton’s reconstruction of the legal academicians’ wrangling over Marbury makes delightful reading. . . . He is witty, subtle, and makes points with great deftness.&rdquo
&mdashWilliam and Mary Quarterly
&ldquoA coherent, provocative, and welcome challenge to the liberal-Progressive interpretation of judicial review.&rdquo
&mdashJournal of American History
&ldquoThis is one of the half dozen recent works that will be central to the scholarly dispute about judicial review. It will be widely read by law professors and political scientists who teach constitutional law and by constitutional historians.&rdquo
&mdashMartin Shapiro, author of Who Guards the Guardians: Judicial Control of Administration
&ldquoEvery student of judicial review should read this book. Even those who disagree with its main thesis will find it very stimulating.&rdquo
&mdashChristopher Wolfe, author of The Rise of Modern Judicial Review: From Constitutional Interpretation to Judge-Made Law
About the Author
Robert Clinton is associate professor of political science at Southern Illinois University and is a Fulbright Fellow for 1991-1992.
Marbury vs Madison = Implications
You guys ever read decisions or the history of decisions and look at the impact and how the Gov ignores the courts. I dont put much trust in the Courts or justice anymore but I can see why we get revolutions and civil wars and why cops think they are in charge and lowly citizens must comply or be shot.
Marbury v. Madison
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thomas Jefferson, who succeeded Adams as President and believed Marbury's undelivered commission was void.
William Marbury, whose commission Madison refused to deliver.
James Madison, Jefferson's Secretary of State, who withheld Marbury's commission.
In the fiercely contested U.S. presidential election of 1800, the three major candidates were Thomas Jefferson, Aaron Burr, and John Adams, who was the incumbent U.S. president. Adams was aligned with the pro-business and pro-national-government politics of Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist Party, while Jefferson and Burr were part of the opposing Democratic-Republican Party, which favored agriculture and decentralization. American public opinion had gradually turned against the Federalists in the months prior to the election, mainly due to their use of the controversial Alien and Sedition Acts, as well as growing tensions with Great Britain, with whom the Federalists favored close ties. Jefferson easily won the popular vote, but only narrowly defeated Adams in the Electoral College.[note 1]
As the results of the election became clear in early 1801, Adams and the Federalists became determined to exercise their influence in the weeks remaining before Jefferson took office, and did all they could to fill federal offices with "anti-Jeffersonians" who were loyal to the Federalists. On March 2, 1801, just two days before his presidential term ended, Adams nominated nearly 60 Federalist supporters to circuit judge and justice of the peace positions the Federalist-controlled Congress had newly created with the Judiciary Act of 1801. These last-minute nominees—whom Jefferson's supporters derisively referred to as the "Midnight Judges"—included William Marbury, a prosperous businessman from Maryland. An ardent Federalist, Marbury was active in Maryland politics and had been a vigorous supporter of the Adams presidency.
The following day, March 3, the Senate approved Adams's nominations en masse. The appointees' commissions were immediately written out, then signed by Adams and sealed by his Secretary of State, John Marshall, who had been named the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in January but continued also serving as Secretary of State until Jefferson took office. Marshall then dispatched his younger brother James Markham Marshall to deliver the commissions to the appointees. With only one day left before Jefferson's inauguration, James Marshall was able to deliver most of the commissions, but a few—including Marbury's—were not delivered.
The day after, March 4, 1801, Thomas Jefferson was sworn in and became the 3rd President of the United States. As soon as he was able, Jefferson instructed his new Secretary of State, James Madison, to withhold the undelivered appointments. In Jefferson's opinion, the commissions were void because they had not been delivered in time.Without the commissions, the appointees were unable to assume the offices and duties to which they had been appointed. Over the next several months, Madison continually refused to deliver Marbury's commission to him. Finally, in December 1801, Marbury filed suit against Madison in the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to issue a writ of mandamus forcing Madison to deliver Marbury's commission. This lawsuit resulted in the case of Marbury v. Madison.
- First, did Marbury have a right to his commission?
- Second, if Marbury had a right to his commission, was there a legal remedy for him to obtain it, and if so, what was it?
- Third, if there was such a remedy, could the Supreme Court legally issue it?
The U.S. Capitol — home of the U.S. Congress, and also where the U.S. Supreme Court convened from 1801 until the opening of the Supreme Court Building in 1935.
This brought Marshall to the most important issue of the opinion: the propriety of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over the matter, which would determine whether or not the Court had the power to issue the writ Marbury requested. This issue depended entirely on how the Court interpreted the text of a law Congress had passed that dealt with the Supreme Court's original and appellate jurisdictions. As Marshall explains in the opinion, under original jurisdiction, a court has the power to be the first to hear and decide a case under appellate jurisdiction, a party to an instituted decision appeals to a higher court, which has the power to "revise and correct" the previous decision.
Congress had passed the Judiciary Act of 1789 to establish the American federal court system, since Article III of the U.S. Constitution only specifies that there is to be a Supreme Court, and leaves the rest of the federal judicial power to reside in "such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The Judiciary Act contained a section that defines areas in which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, and areas in which it has appellate jurisdiction.
This section says that the Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction over cases where a U.S. State is a party to a lawsuit or where a lawsuit involves foreign dignitaries. Neither of these categories covered Marbury's justice of the peace commission, and so, according to the Constitution, the Court could only have heard Marbury's case while exercising appellate jurisdiction. However, Marshall had interpreted the Judicial Act to have given the Court original jurisdiction over the matter: this meant that the Judicial Act apparently took the initial scope of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction—which was limited to cases either directly involving States or involving foreign dignitaries—and expanded it to include issuing writs of mandamus. Marshall ruled that Congress cannot increase the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction as it was set down in the Constitution, and therefore that the relevant portion of Section 13 of the Judiciary Act violated Article III of the Constitution.
Judicial review and striking down the law
Main article: Judicial review in the United States
Inscription on the wall of the Supreme Court Building from Marbury v. Madison, in which Chief Justice John Marshall outlined the concept of judicial review.
After ruling that it conflicted with the Constitution, Marshall struck down the relevant portion of the Judiciary Act in the U.S. Supreme Court's first ever declaration of the power of judicial review. Marshall ruled that American federal courts have the power to refuse to give any effect to congressional legislation that is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution – a move known as "striking down" laws.
The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly give the American judiciary the power of judicial review. Nevertheless, Marshall's opinion gives a number of reasons in support of the judiciary's possession of the power.
First, Marshall reasoned that the written nature of the Constitution inherently established judicial review. In a line borrowed from Alexander Hamilton's essay Federalist No. 78, Marshall wrote: "The powers of the legislature are defined and limited and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written." He continued:
Marshall then gave several other reasons in favor of judicial review. He argued that the authorization in Article III of the Constitution that the Court can decide cases arising "under this Constitution" implied that the Court had the power to strike down laws conflicting with the Constitution. This, Marshall wrote, meant that the Founders were willing to have the American judiciary use and interpret the Constitution when judging cases. He also argued that federal judges' oaths of office—in which they swear to discharge their duties impartially and "agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States"—requires them to support the Constitution. Lastly, Marshall argued that judicial review is implied in Article VI of the Constitution, since it declares the supreme law of the United States to be not the Constitution and the laws of the United States in general, but rather the Constitution and laws made "in Pursuance thereof".
Chief Justice John Marshall as painted by Henry Inman in 1832, after having presided over the American judiciary for over 30 years.
Besides its inherent legal questions, the case of Marbury v. Madison also created a difficult political dilemma for Marshall and the rest of the Supreme Court. If the Court ruled in favor of Marbury and issued a writ of mandamus ordering Madison to deliver the commission, Jefferson and Madison would probably have simply ignored the order, which would have made the Court look impotent and emphasized the "shakiness" of the judiciary. On the other hand, a plain and simple ruling against Marbury would have given Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans a clear political victory.
Marshall solved both problems. First, he ruled that Madison's withholding of Marbury's commission was illegal, which gave the Federalists some comfort but then, he said the Court could not give Marbury his requested writ of mandamus, giving Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans the result they desired. Having done so, Marshall maneuvered Marbury's simple petition for a writ of mandamus into a question that went to heart of American constitutional law itself in what the American constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe described as "an oft-told tale . [that] remains awe-inspiring". In his well-known history of the Supreme Court, the American political historian Robert G. McCloskey (1916–1969) appraised Marshall's handling of the case as follows:
Marshall had been looking for a case that was suitable for introducing judicial review, and was eager to use the situation in Marbury to establish his claim. He introduced judicial review—a move Jefferson decried—but used it to strike down a provision of a law that he read to have expanded the Supreme Court's powers, and thereby produced Jefferson's hoped-for result of Marbury losing his case. In essence, "Marshall seized the occasion to uphold the institution of judicial review, but he did so in the course of reaching a judgment that his political opponents could neither defy nor protest." Though Jefferson criticized Marshall's opinion, he accepted it, and Marshall's decision in Marbury "articulate[d] a role for the federal courts that survives to this day." In the words of the American legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky: "The brilliance of Marshall's opinion cannot be overstated."
Given its preeminent position in American constitutional law, Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison continues to be the subject of critical analysis and historical inquiry. In a 1955 Harvard Law Review article, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter emphasized that one can criticize Marshall's opinion in Marbury without demeaning it: "The courage of Marbury v. Madison is not minimized by suggesting that its reasoning is not impeccable and its conclusion, however wise, not inevitable."
Criticisms of Marshall's opinion in Marbury usually fall into two general categories. First, some criticize the way Marshall "strove" to reach the conclusion that the U.S. Supreme Court has constitutional authority over the other branches of the U.S. government. For example, American courts now generally follow the principle of "constitutional avoidance": if a certain interpretation of a law raises constitutional problems, they prefer to use alternative interpretations that avoid these problems.  In Marbury, Marshall could have avoided the constitutional questions through different legal rulings: for example, if he had ruled that Marbury did not have a right to his commission until it was delivered, or if he had ruled that refusals to honor political appointments could only be remedied through the political process and not the judicial process, the Court would not have reached the case's constitutional issues. Marshall did not do so, and many legal scholars have criticized him for it. However, others have noted that the "constitutional avoidance" principle did not exist in 1803, and in any case is "only a general guide for Court action", not an ironclad precept. Alternatively, it has also been argued that the view that Marshall "strove" to create a controversy largely vanishes when the case is viewed from the perspective of the late 18th century, when American colonies' and states' supreme courts were largely modeled on the British Court of King's Bench and its inherent mandamus powers.
Second, Marshall's arguments for the Court's authority are sometimes said to be mere "series of assertions", rather than substantive reasons logically laid out to support his position. It is generally agreed that Marshall's series of assertions regarding the U.S. Constitution and the actions of the other branches of government do not "inexorably lead to the conclusion that Marshall draws from them". Marshall's assertion of the American judiciary's authority to review executive branch actions was the most controversial issue when Marbury was first decided, and several subsequent U.S. presidents have tried to dispute it, to varying degrees.
Additionally, it is questionable whether Marshall should have participated in the Marbury case because of his participating role in the dispute. Marshall was still the acting Secretary of State when the nominations were made, and he himself had signed Marbury and the other men's commissions and had been responsible for their delivery. This potential conflict of interest raises strong grounds for Marshall to have recused himself from the case. In hindsight, the fact that Marshall did not recuse himself from Marbury is likely indicative of his eagerness to hear the case and use it to establish judicial review.
The subpoena duces tecum (order to bring items as evidence) issued to President Richard Nixon that was the center of the dispute in the 1974 judicial review case United States v. Nixon.
Marbury v. Madison remains the single most important decision in American constitutional law. It established American judges' authority to review the constitutionality of Congress's legislative acts, and to this day the Supreme Court's power to review the constitutionality of American laws at both the federal and state level "is generally rested upon the epic decision of Marbury v. Madison."
Although the Court's opinion in Marbury established judicial review in American federal law, it did not create or invent the concept. Some 18th-century British jurists had argued that British courts had the power to circumscribe Parliament, and the principle became generally accepted in Colonial America—especially in Marshall's native Virginia—due to the idea that in America only the people were sovereign, rather than the government, and therefore that the courts should only implement legitimate laws. By the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, American courts' "independent power and duty to interpret the law" was well established. Nevertheless, Marshall's opinion in Marbury was the power's first announcement and exercise by the Supreme Court. It made the practice more routine, rather than exceptional, and prepared the way for the Court's opinion in the 1819 case McCulloch v. Maryland, in which Marshall implied that the Supreme Court was the supreme interpreter of the U.S. Constitution.
Marbury also established that the power of judicial review covers actions by the executive branch – the President and his cabinet members. However, American courts' power of judicial review over executive branch actions only extends to matters in which the executive has a legal duty to act or refrain from acting, and does not extend to matters that are entirely within the President's discretion, such as whether to veto a bill or whom to appoint to an office. This power has been the basis of many subsequent important Supreme Court decisions in American history, such as the 1974 case United States v. Nixon, in which the Court held that President Richard Nixon was required to comply with a subpoena to provide tapes of his conversations for use in a criminal trial related to the Watergate scandal, and which ultimately led to Nixon's resignation.
Although it is a potent check on the other branches of the U.S. government, the power of judicial review was rarely exercised in early American history. After deciding Marbury in 1803, the Supreme Court did not strike down another federal law until 1857, when the Court struck down the Missouri Compromise in the now-infamous case Dred Scott v. Sandford, a ruling that contributed to the outbreak of the American Civil War.
What are the three principles of judicial review established by the Marbury v Madison decision?
Marbury v. Madison (1803) With his decision in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review, an important addition to the system of &ldquochecks and balances&rdquo created to prevent any one branch of the Federal Government from becoming too powerful.
Also, what Supreme Court case established the principle of judicial review? Marbury v
Keeping this in view, what was the decision of Marbury v Madison?
Marbury v. Madison, legal case in which, on February 24, 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court first declared an act of Congress unconstitutional, thus establishing the doctrine of judicial review. The court's opinion, written by Chief Justice John Marshall, is considered one of the foundations of U.S. constitutional law.
What is the judicial review process?
Judicial review (JR) is the process of challenging the lawfulness of decisions of public authorities, usually local or central government. The court has a "supervisory" role - making sure the decision maker acts lawfully. In turn this usually means that the decision has to be taken again.
Marbury v. Madison: The Origins and Legacy of Judicial Review by William Nelson
William Nelson gives the Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison ample historical context and addresses new interpretations of it in light of recent scholarship in Marbury v. Madison: The Origins and Legacy of Judicial Review .
The book is part of the University Press of Kansas’ Landmark Law Cases and American Society series, so the book must be understood through both the author’s intentions and decisions as well as the editors’ intentions and decisions.
The editors say in the editors’ preface that they included Marbury v. Madison —specifically Nelson’s interpretation of this case—in the series because it’s an important case in United States history. They state that “the case is an essential part of the adolescence of American democratic republicanism” and that the meaning of judicial review has shifted since Chief Justice John Marshall’s ruling. Nelson’s purpose in writing the book, however, goes beyond the recognition of Marbury v. Madison as a “foundational” case for understanding the Supreme Court today.
Nelson writes that the old interpretation of Marbury —that Marshall purposefully furthered the goals of his own political party in the decision—is flawed. Nelson claims to pioneer a new interpretation of Marbury , and while he acknowledges that some historians (Charles Hobson, Sylvia Snowiss, Robert Lowry Clinton) have contributed to the recent scholarship surrounding the case, he sees the need for a book that examines the historical context of the case and its ongoing significance in American and global constitutionalism. Nelson combines constitutional theory, political science, and legal theory to do this.
The book’s audience is determined by the series it belongs to. The editors note in the bibliographical essay that the series is designed for students and general readers. So while the purpose of this book is to dive into the details of the context and significance of the Marbury case, Nelson is limited given the restraints of the target audience and wishes of the editors.
Nelson keeps this audience in mind as he clearly states his thesis and what he is attempting to prove in Marbury v. Madison: The Origins and Legacy of Judicial Review. He lays it out for readers plainly in the introduction: “The core thesis of this book is that in Marbury v. Madison , Chief Justice John Marshall drew a line, which nearly all citizens of his time believed ought to be drawn, between the legal and the political—between those matters on which all Americans agreed and which therefore were fixed and immutable and those matters which were subject to fluctuation and change through democratic politics.”
To lay the foundation for proving his thesis, Nelson first examines the legal and historical context of the time, starting with English law and how Americans colonists thought about law and fundamental ideas in the 18th century. The first three chapters contextualize the society, legal theory, and personal biography of Marshall that are vital to Nelson’s interpretation of Marbury . The fourth chapter deals with details of the case itself. Then, chapters five through nine show that since the Marbury decision in 1803, society and legal and constitutional theories have shifted to give judicial review a different meaning and application in today’s world. This supports Nelson’s argument that the current view of judicial review is different, but related to, the Marshall Court’s view of judicial review. According to Nelson, it is these arguments and context that make the book stand out among recent scholarship on the case.
The book is concise at 125 pages, and Nelson generally provides enough context for students and the general public to follow his ideas. However, the book would benefit from more discussion of the shift of the courts and society that Nelson discusses in chapter seven regarding President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the “redefinition of democracy.” The importance of the 1930s as the period when judges began to decide more and more on cases that were once considered political is intriguing, but we don’t learn enough about it in that chapter.
Another flaw in Marbury v. Madison: The Origins and Legacy of Judicial Review is the editors’ choice not to include formal citations throughout the text. While the editors explain that this practice is supposed to enhance the readability of the text for its general audience, Nelson’s use of sources demands more explanation in places. Several times throughout the text, Nelson says that “no one thought about this issue this way” or that “everyone thought about this issue this way.” These generalizations might be based on the primary sources Nelson has examined, or they could be based on the secondary sources he’s read on the matter. The lack of citations in these areas is problematic for academic readers who want to know how Nelson is reaching these conclusions. However, it’s understandable that the editors want the book to appeal to a general audience, which would be largely unconcerned with these issues both Nelson and the editors can safely assume that if academic readers wish to know more about Nelson’s research and interpretive process, they could start by reading Nelson’s three articles that the book draws from.
Beyond the issues that might pique the curiosity of Nelson’s more scholarly readers, Nelson’s writing is well-suited toward a general audience, as he is careful to define terms that his audience may not be familiar with. This attention to detail and definitions is not just the mark of a good writer, but of a good philosopher and rhetorician: Nelson understands that the first step to starting a discussion is to define the terms so that everyone is on the same page. After the terms have been defined, everyone can argue about how to put together the story, or interpretation, of the agreed-upon terms. Nelson does this both at the sentence level and at a global level as he carefully establishes context surrounding a particular idea and decision and then shows why, given the defined context, his “story” holds together.
There are three main grounds of judicial review: illegality, procedural unfairness, and irrationality. A decision can be overturned on the ground of illegality if the decision-maker did not have the legal power to make that decision, for instance because Parliament gave them less discretion than they thought.
Overall while there may be 6 weeks in planning cases and up to three months in non-planning law cases to take action, you cannot be dilatory or look as though you are acquiescing in a decision. It is worth considering action as soon as you possibly can. In statutory appeals cases the time is fixed at six weeks.
Significance of Marbury v. Madison
This historic court case established the concept of Judicial Review, the ability of the Judiciary Branch to declare a law unconstitutional. This case brought the judicial branch of the government on a more even power basis with the legislative and executive branches. The Founding Fathers expected the branches of government to act as checks and balances on one another. The historic court case Marbury v. Madison accomplished this end, thereby setting the precedent for numerous historic decisions in the future.