Marbury v. Madison established the power of judicial review, enabling a court to rule on the constitutionality of laws.
William Marbury was appointed to a judgeship by incumbent president John Adams with the advice and consent of the Senate. Although Adams properly appointed Marbury in the last days of his presidency, the executive branch did not deliver Marbury’s commission before Thomas Jefferson’s inauguration. After Jefferson became president, he directed James Madison, the current Secretary of State, not to deliver the commission. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court, asking the Court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel Madison to deliver the commission.
In deciding this case, the Court found that Madison failed to show cause as to why the commission should not be delivered. Therefore, because the commission and the appointment were properly made, Marbury had a vested and irrevocable legal right to his appointment.
However, the Court found that they could not issue the writ of mandamus because the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 enabling Marbury to bring his claim was unconstitutional. The Court ruled that the Act would extend the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution established.
In his opinion, Chief Justice John Marshall declared that “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 139 (1803).
With this, Chief Justice Marshall established the role of judicial review and the power of the courts.
Authorities Cited:
United States v. Lawrence (1795)
Citation(s): 3 U.S 42 (3 Dallas 42)
The plaintiff, the United States, moved the court to issue a writ of mandamus requiring the defendant, John Lawrence, a judge of the District of New York, to issue a warrant for the apprehension of Captain Barre. Barre, a commander of the French Republic’s frigate Le Perdix, had supposedly abandoned the ship and started a new life in New York. Lawrence initially denied the warrant request, claiming that Barre’s name being on a New York registrar was not enough evidence to issue a warrant. The U.S. Supreme Court found that they could not compel Lawrence to issue the warrant because he was acting in his official capacity as a judge and was free to decide the matter as he saw in accordance with the laws.
The court in Marbury relied on Lawrence as an instance of when the court did not see a jurisdictional problem with issuing a writ of mandamus against an agent of the federal government.
United States v. Peters (1795)
Citation(s): 3 U.S. 121 (3 Dallas 121)
James Yard sought a libel complaint against the Cassius, an armed ship owned by the French Republic and commanded by Samuel Davis. Upon reviewing this action, the District Court of Pennsylvania, presided over by Judge Peters, found that it lacked jurisdiction. In response, the federal government brought this action against Peters and the District Court of Pennsylvania to compel the court to exercise jurisdiction over the libel complaint, while the District Court of Pennsylvania sought a writ of prohibition. The Supreme Court found that because the Cassius acted properly under the rules of its governing nation, the ship and its crew were only answerable to the French Republic.
The Court in Marbury relied on Peters as an example of a situation where the Court refused to issue mandamus because they did not find jurisdiction.
Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-69)
Citation(s): 3 Blackstone's Commentaries 23, 109-111
William Blackstone (1723–1780) was a renowned eighteenth-century English jurist, judge, and politician. He conducted lecture series on English law and in 1759 was confirmed as the first Vinerian Professor of English Law at Oxford University. In 1765, he published the first volume of his most influential work, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765 – 1769). The completed Commentaries, in four volumes, became the most comprehensive and popular summary of English common law in its time. It has frequently been cited by the U.S. Supreme Court and still stands as the most influential book in the history of the common law.
The Court in Marbury relied on Blackstone’s third volume for its definition of the term "mandamus" (Marbury, at 168), a rule concerning when “a remedy is afforded by mere operation of law” and how injuries can be committed by the crown. Id. at 163-165. It also referred to Blackstone for the principle that legal rights must be vindicated by legal remedies, and that injuries are within the cognizance of the courts.
King v. Barker, et al. (1762)
Citation(s): 97 English Reports 823; 3 Burrows' Reports 1265
Christopher Mend, a Presbyterian minister, won the election to become the minister of his congregation, entitling him to possess the deed for a newly built chapel. Despite the majority of the congregation corroborating the election of Mend, the trustees instead conferred possession to John Hanmer. The Barker court issued a writ of mandamus to issue in favor of Mend because they could find no other legal remedy to resolve the matter. The court reasoned that refusing the writ could lead to serious consequences. By leaving the Presbyterian church and its practices without legal protection, such a move could incite those impassioned by the contested election to violence and embarrass the government.
The Court in Marbury relied on King for its precise definition of when a writ of mandamus may be issued.
Using this definition, the court found that a writ of mandamus would generally be appropriate in this type of situation because “the applicant, in this case, has a right to execute an office of public concern, and is kept out of possession of that right.” Marbury, 5 U.S. 137 at 169.
The Marbury court, however, went on to hold that for mandamus to be proper, (1) the officer receiving the writ must be legally able to receive it, and (2) it must be the only specific and legal remedy available to the applicant.
More Resources:
