Marbury v. Madison

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision authored by Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled against Marbury — but did so in a way that dramatically expanded the power of the judiciary. The Court's opinion addressed three questions in sequence, and its reasoning on each was carefully crafted to assert judicial authority while avoiding a direct confrontation with the Jefferson administration. The vote was 4–0, with two justices (William Cushing and Alfred Moore) not participating.

On the first question — whether Marbury had a right to his commission — Marshall answered yes. The Court held that once the President signs a commission and the Secretary of State affixes the seal of the United States, the appointment is complete. Delivery is merely a formality, not a legal requirement. Therefore, Marbury had a vested right to his position as Justice of the Peace, and Madison's refusal to deliver the commission was a violation of that right.

On the second question — whether the laws of the United States afforded Marbury a remedy — Marshall again answered yes. The Court declared that the very essence of civil liberty requires that every individual who suffers a legal wrong must have a remedy. The government of the United States, Marshall wrote, is 'a government of laws, and not of men,' and it would cease to deserve that title if the law provided no means of redress for the violation of a vested legal right. A writ of mandamus — a court order compelling an official to perform a duty owed by law — was the appropriate remedy.

On the third and decisive question — whether the Supreme Court could issue that writ — Marshall answered no, and this is where the case became historic. Marbury had filed his case directly in the Supreme Court, relying on Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which appeared to grant the Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus. However, Marshall held that Article III of the Constitution carefully defines the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction — cases involving ambassadors, public ministers, and those in which a state is a party — and Congress cannot expand that list by statute. Because Section 13 attempted to give the Supreme Court a power not authorized by the Constitution, it was unconstitutional and therefore void.

This conclusion led Marshall to articulate the foundational principle of American constitutional law: judicial review. Marshall reasoned that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, that it places limits on what the government can do, and that those limits would be meaningless if any ordinary act of Congress could override them. It is 'emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,' Marshall wrote. When a statute conflicts with the Constitution, courts must give effect to the Constitution and refuse to enforce the statute. With this declaration, the Supreme Court claimed for itself the ultimate authority to interpret the Constitution and to strike down laws that violate it — a power it has exercised ever since.