Marbury v.

Madison:
What is important about the Supreme Court?

Giovanna Pizarro

History 1700
Professor Hansen
May 5, 2016

Pizarro 2
History Background
The Constitution called for a creation of a federal government with the following
branches; legislative, executive and judiciary. In Article I, the Constitution created the United
States Congress, the bicameral legislature, which is the Senate and House of Representatives and
the power to make laws. Article II of the Constitution established the office of the President, who
executes and carries out the law. Article III of the Constitution created the federal court system,
the Supreme Court and other lower courts. The United States Constitution left the meaning of
Article III open for interpretation.1 In 1789, shortly after the Constitution was ratified, Congress
passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which established the federal court system. Congress created
the Supreme Court, the three circuit courts and 13 districts courts. The Constitution did not
clearly state how many judges were appointed to the Supreme Court, but the Judiciary Act of
1789 established the Chief Justice and five Associated Justices. John Marshall served from 1801
to 1835, was appointed justice of the peace, for the District of Columbia in the final hours of
Adams administration, influenced the action of the Supreme Court and received an important
case the Marbury v. Madison that became one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in
the United States history. Marshall was appointed as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court In
January 1801.
Marbury v. Madison
In the Marbury v. Madison case, Chief Justice John C. Marshall established the principle
of judicial review, an important addition to the system of checks and balances created to
prevent any one branches of the Federal Government from becoming too powerful (Marbury v.
1

Marbury v. Madison (1803) copyright 2005

Information Please
Person Education, Inc., publishing as Person Prentice Hall.

Pizarro 3
Madison 1803). The power of judicial review allows the federal court to force the government
officials to take action in accordance with the Constitutional principles. Also the judicial review
is regularly exercised by the state courts, over the state and federal constitutional questions. On
November in the year 1800, President Adams, a Federalist, lost against Thomas Jefferson in the
election. 2 The political tides turned against the Federalists during the election of the 1800s, when
the Republican wrested control of both the houses of Congress and Thomas Jefferson, their
partly leader, was elected president. In the election the Federalists lost control of Congress, but
as a few month passed before the new president takes over, Adams and his Federalist party still
had control. In the term (1797-1801), President Adams Federalists controlled the executive and
the legislative branches of the federal government. During the months before President Jefferson
takes office, Adams had Congress pass a new law, the Judiciary Act of 1801, which was also
called the Midnight Judges Act. That law gave Adams the power to appoint new federal judges.
He wanted to expand the number of judges in the federal judiciary, so that they can carry out
President Adams Legacy. At the time the Federalists wanted to fill the nations courts with
people who would oppose the policies of the arriving Republican administration. Before
President John Adams was about to leave office, he wrote a bunch of judicial commissions to
select new federalist judges to take on his legacy. Adams appointed forty-two Federalist justices
of the peace and sixteen new circuit court justices, for the District of Columbia, under the
Organic Act. The Organic Act was a way for the Federalists to take control of the federal
judiciary before President Thomas Jefferson took office. When all the commissions were done
being signed, John Marshall at the time was Secretary of State, ran out of time to deliver those
commissions to William Marbury. When Thomas Jefferson became President in 1801, he knew
2

Work Cited
Marbury v. Madison Wests Encyclopedia of American Law.
2005. Encyclopedia.com. (April 18, 2016)

Pizarro 4
that Adams wanted to fill the court with Federalist judges. As Thomas Jefferson assumed office
on March 5, 1801, he saw all these judicial commissions, he told James Madison to not send the
commissions to appoint new Federalist judges, because President Jefferson wanted to prevent the
Federalists from becoming justices of the peace. 3Marbury and three other appointees petitioned
for a writ of mandamus compelling delivery of the commissions. During the case, what issues
did Chief Justice John C. Marshall had to face and how did he resolve these issues?
In the process of not delivering the commission, Marbury requests a writ of Mandamus, a
mandate. Congress said if needed to be, the Supreme Court can mandate, that something had to
happen. Marbury asked the court for a Writ of Mandamus, to give him the commission as a
federal judge. Marbury and his lawyer, who was a former attorney general Charles Lee, had
argued that signing and sealing the commission had completed the transaction and the delivery,
but without having the actual piece of parchment, Marbury was not able to enter his duty of
office. None of this would have happened, if John Marshall, Secretary of State, had delivered
those commissions, but he ran out of time. Now that he is Chief Justice, he receives a request and
wants to give William Marbury the commissions since he is a Federalist, but he also has a new
administration full of anti-federalists and does not want to make them upset. 4Some scholars have
questioned whether Marshall should have removed himself from the case because of his prior
service as Adams secretary of state (1800-1801). For that belief, the Congress actually suspends
the Supreme Court for a full year. It was a message to John Marshall and the other justices on the
bench that if they choose to deal with the case in the wrong way, against the Democratic
Republican, against Jefferson Administration there will be huge consequences.
Issues
3

The Readers Companion to American History.

Eric Foner and John A. Garraty, Editors.
Copyright 1991 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company
4
Marbury v. Madison, Written by: Melvin I. Urofsky, Copyright 2016 Encyclopaedia Britannic, Inc

Pizarro 5
John Marshall is faced will a huge dilemma. If the court had issued the Writ of
Mandamus, President Jefferson could have ignored it, because the court had no power to enforce
it. On the other hand, the court did refused to issue the writ of mandamus, it seems that the
judicial branch of the government had back down before the executive, and Chief Justice
Marshall would not allow the judicial branch to back down before the executive. If Chief Justice
John Marshall rules that President Jefferson has to hand over the commission to William
Marbury, Jefferson is going to ignore the court order. On the other hand, if the Court had rule for
the Madison side, Marbury and the Federalists who had appointed and confirmed him, would
suffer a humiliating defeat. 5In either issue, the executive branch would be perceived as
preeminent. If a the President of the United States, Secretary of State, ignores an order from the
United States Supreme Court what would that lead too? By ignoring the order, it could make the
Supreme Court an inferior branch of the federal government. This case would not be a pleasant
issue to solve.
Marshalls major opinions
What is incredible is the decision in how Chief Justice John Marshall handled this case.
In Chief Justice Marshall Opinion, he has three questions: first question is John Marshall wants
to know whether or not if there is some kind of legal harm suffered by William Marbury. What
he means is, when President Jefferson refused to send the commission it was illegal, President
Jefferson did not faithfully execute the law. Second question is that Chief Justice Marshall wants
to know if, whether there is a remedy at law for those legal injuries. John Marshall said that
because William Marbury did not receive his commission, Marbury has the right to sue. Third
question was if the Supreme Court could do anything about it. Marshall decides to go back to the

"Marbury v. Madison." West's Encyclopedia of American Law. 2005. Encyclopedia.com. (April 26, 2016).
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3437702822.html

Pizarro 6
Judiciary Act of 1789, and finds that the Writ of Mandamus was an expansion of original
jurisdiction; it expanded the power that the court has under the Constitution. By following the
arguments of Marburys counsel on the first two question, Justice Marshall held that the power of
the commission only existed when the president signs it and sends it to the secretary of state to
add the seal. The Presidential discretion would have ended there, but the political decision had
been made and the secretary of state had a small task to achieve, by delivering the commissions.6
Chief Justice Marshall carefully had a long discussion, between the political acts of the president
and the secretary, which the courts had no business to interfere and the simple administrative
execution that governed, by law, the judiciary could review.
The Decision & Impact
Although Marbury did not become a justice of peace, the ruling in the Marbury v.
Madison case, established an important precedent. 7A precedent is a legal decision that serves as
an example in later court cases. Chief Justice John Marshall believes that, the part of the
Judiciary Act of 1789 is constitutional. He reasons that the Judiciary Act of 1789 amends the
Constitution. The Supreme Court does not have the power to issue a mandate, that something
happen. Therefore, the part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 at Section 13 that adds to the Supreme
Court original jurisdiction must be null and void. It cannot stand because it directly conflicts with
Article 3 Section 2 of the United States Constitution.8 Article III of the United States
Constitution, consults on having two types of jurisdictions: original and appellate. Original
6

Work Cited
Marbury v. Madison
Written by: Melvin I. Urofsky
Copyright 2016 Encyclopaedia Britannic, Inc
7
Work Cited
Marbury v. Madison (1803) copyright 2005
Information Please Person Education, Inc., publishing as Person Prentice Hall.
8

Supreme Court Stories: Marbury v. Madsion. Performed by Jocelyn Evans, Kirk Randazzo, David Woodard, and
Kyle Kopko. Suprieme Court Storie: Marbury v. Madson. February 22, 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=KwciUVLdSPk&feature=youtu.be

Pizarro 7
jurisdiction gives the court the power to hear out lawsuits from the court inception, when a
complaint or petition is originally filed with a tribunal. Appellate jurisdiction gives the courts the
power to review any decisions that were made by the lower courts and it has to be appealed, in
order to reverse an implied error. According to Article III of the Constitution, the issue of original
jurisdiction can only be applied to cases that affects ambassadors, public ministers, consuls and
other cases. By expanding the Courts original jurisdiction to include cases like Marburys,
Congress has surpassed its authority when the acts of Congress had an issue with the
Constitution. 9Marshal said, the obligation of the Court to uphold the Constitution because, of
Article VI, is the supreme law of the land. In that conclusion, Marshall declared a law of
Congress unconstitutional, and from then on established the precedent for judicial review. This is
the courts greatest power that only the Supreme Court can say what the Constitution is. This
ability to examine laws, compare them to the Constitution and when there is a discrepancy to
actually declare that law or a part of that law null and void. 10This case defines the power of the
United States Supreme Court, the Supreme court today has the power to interpret the
Constitution and to say what the law is, because of the Marbury v. Madison case. Marshalls
powerful judgement has been widely hailed. In the face of attacks on the judiciary, that Jefferson
and his followers started, Marshall needed to make a strong statement to maintain the stature of
the Supreme Court, as head of a coequal branch government. By establishing the power to
declare that the acts of Congress unconstitutional, Marshall claimed for the court a more
important position as the translator of the Constitution. Although the Marbury v. Madison case

Work Cited
Marbury v. Madison (1803)Alex McBride, Published in December 2006
The Supreme court is a production of thirteen/WNET New York
Copyright 2007 Educational Broadcasting Corporation
10

Supreme Court Stories: Marbury v. Madsion. Performed by Jocelyn Evans, Kirk Randazzo, David Woodard, and
Kyle Kopko. Suprieme Court Storie: Marbury v. Madson. February 22, 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=KwciUVLdSPk&feature=youtu.be

Pizarro 8
set a long term model for the courts power in that area, it did not end the debate over the courts
own visions. 11It is likely that the issue will never be fully resolved. It seems that the facts still
remains that the court has challenged and exercised the power of the judicial review through
most of the United States History. 12Only a few jurists will argue that Marshalls statement of
principle is near the end of his opinion, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that
courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
In the end of the case, Chief Justice Marshall denied Marburys commission, which made
President Jefferson happy because his Republicans were pleased that they won the victory, but
Jefferson was not happy about the lecture he received from the Chief Justice John Marshall.
President Jefferson was also not happy with Marshalls confirmation of the courts power to be
able to review the acts of Congress. For practical reasons, Chief Justice Marshall did not say that
the court was the only translator of the Constitution and how the court could impose its decision
if Congress or the Executive had opposed them. Each of these achievements that Marshall did,
set the stage for a gradual accretion of power, respect and prestige in the federal judiciary. As the
power of the federal judiciary continues to increase, so did the power of the entire federal
government, which had proved importance to President Abraham Lincoln. Without the Marbury
v. Madison case, the Supreme Court would not have the power to decide if something is related
to the Constitution. This gives the Supreme Court the power to examine laws and compare them
to the Constitution, this the courts greatest power.

11

Work Cited

Encyclopdia Britannica Online, s. v. "Marbury v. Madison", accessed April 26, 2016,

http://www.britannica.com/event/Marbury-v-Madison.
12
Encyclopdia Britannica Online, s. v. "Marbury v. Madison", accessed April 26, 2016,
http://www.britannica.com/event/Marbury-v-Madison.

Pizarro 9
Bibliography
Marbury v. Madison: 1 page, history.com, http://www.history.com/topics/marbury-v-madison
Marbury v. Madison: 1 page, http://www.britannica.com/event/Marbury-v-Madison
Marbury v. Madison 1803: 1 page, http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=19
Marbury v. Madison 1803: 1 page, http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar20.html
Marbury v. Madison 1803: 1 page,
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/democracy/landmark_marbury.html
Supreme Court Stories: Marbury v. Madison Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=KwciUVLdSPk&feature=youtu.be
"Marbury v. Madison." West's Encyclopedia of American Law. 2005. Encyclopedia.com. (April
18, 2016). http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Marbury_v_Madison.aspx