Marbury v.

Madison
Brief Fact Summary. William Marbury (Marbury), an end-of-term appointee of President John Adams
(President Adams) to a justice of the peace position in the District of Columbia, brought suit against
President Thomas Jeffersons (President Jefferson) Secretary of State, James Madison, seeking delivery
of his commission.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) has constitutional
authority to review executive actions and legislative acts. The Supreme Court has limited jurisdiction,
the bounds of which are set by the United States Constitution (Constitution), which may not be enlarged
by the Congress.

Facts. Before the inauguration of President Jefferson, outgoing President Adams attempted to secure
Federalist control of the judiciary by creating new judgeships and filling them with Federalist
appointees. Included in these efforts was the nomination by President Adams, under the Organic Act of
the District of Columbia (the District), of 42 new justices of the peace for the District, which were
confirmed by the Senate the day before President Jeffersons inauguration. A few of the commissions,
including Marburys, were undelivered when President Jefferson took office. The new president
instructed Secretary of State James Madison to withhold delivery of the commissions. Marbury sought
mandamus in the Supreme Court, requiring James Madison to deliver his commission.

Issue. Is Marbury entitled to mandamus from the Supreme Court?

Held. No. Case dismissed for want of jurisdiction. As the President signed Marburys commission after
his confirmation, the appointment has been made, and Marbury has a right to the commission
Given that the law imposed a duty on the office of the president to deliver Marburys commission, that
the Supreme Court has the power to review executive actions when the executive acts as an officer of
the law and the nature of the writ of mandamus to direct an officer of the government to do a particular
thing therein specified, mandamus is the appropriate remedy, if available to the Supreme Court.
To issue mandamus to the Secretary of State really is to sustain an original action, which is (in this case)
outside the constitutional limits of jurisdiction imposed on the Supreme Court.

Discussion. The importance of Marbury v. Madison is both political and legal. Although the case
establishes the traditions of judicial review and a litigable constitution on which the remainder of
constitutional law rests, it also transformed the Supreme Court from an incongruous institution to an
equipotent head of a branch of the federal government.

Page 1 of 3
FRIDAY, JANUARY 9, 2009

Marbury vs. Madison

Marbury vs. Madison

5 US (Cranch) 137
February 1803

FACTS:

Petitioner William Marbury was appointed Justice of the Peace for the county if Washington in the
District of Columbia by then President John Adams of the US shortly before the latter vacated his
Office. However, Adams' Secretary of State, John Marshall, failed to deliver to Marbury the latter's
duly signed and sealed commission documents, without which the petitioner cannot undertake his
office as Justice of the Peace.

When Thomas Jefferson assumed presidency, his new Secretary of State, herein respondent James
Madison, continued to withhold the said commission document from Marbury. Hence, this petition
for mandamus was filed to the US Supreme Court to compel Madison to deliver the commission
document top Marbury.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the same Court has jurisdiction to issue the mandamus, given the circumstances of
the case

COURT RULING:

The US Supreme Court, through the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall, denied Marbury's petition for
mandamus on the argument that the said Court has no jurisdiction on the case, and that the law on
which Marbury based the said petition is unconstitutional.

As a general rule, the Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other
public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, and shall have appellate
jurisdiction in all other cases. In the case at bar, the Court made it clear that Marbury had already
attained the five year legal right to the commission because of the fact that the commission
document has been completed the moment it was officially sealed, obliterating any doubt as to the
authenticity of the signature affixed by the US President himself. However, Marbury failed to show
that the mandamus he prays for is an exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction, not its original
jurisdiction, which led to the denial of his petition.

"It is the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction that it reviews and corrects the proceedings in a
case already instituted, and does not create that case. Although, therefore, a mandamus may be
directed ot courts, yet to issue such a writ to an officer to deliver a paper, is in effect the same as to
sustain an original jurisdiction, Neither is it necessary in such a case as this, to enable the Court to
exercise its appellate jurisdiction"

Page 2 of 3
Another general rule is that any law repugnant to the Constitution is void. The Courts, as well as
other departments, are bound by the instrument, as repeatedly emphasized by Chief Justice
Marshall. He further reiterated that the written Constitution should be upheld and protected at all
times, and that the Court has a duty to ensure that such reverence is given to the written
Constitution. It must remain above all laws.

The power of the legislative department to create laws cannot ever exceed the written Constitution
which itself is the source of such power. The power remains to the legislature to assign original
jurisdiction to that Court in other cases; provided those cases belong to the jurisdictional power of
the US. As to the power of the President over the officer whom he appoints, it is limited by the
written Constitution and is deemed completed the moment he affixed his signature unto the
commission document and "to withhold the commission x x x is an act deemed by the Court not
warranted by law but violative of a vested right."

The action for mandamus in this case filed by the petitioner is in excess of the Court's jurisdiction,
and any law enacted by the legislature which diminish or increase the Court's jurisdiction without
the Court's prior consent is unconstitutional and must be discharged.

Page 3 of 3