At the end of President John Adams’ term, his Secretary of State failed to deliver documents commissioning William Marbury as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia. Once President Thomas Jefferson was sworn in, in order to keep members of the opposing political party from taking office, he told James Madison, his Secretary of State, to not deliver the documents to Marbury. Marbury then sued James Madison asking the Supreme Court to issue a writ requiring him to deliver the documents necessary to officially make Marbury Justice of the Peace. The Marbury v. Madison decision resulted in establishment of the concept of judicial review.
Summary of the Decision
The Court unanimously decided not to require Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury. Chief Justice Marshall understood the danger that this case posed to the power of the Supreme Court. Because Madison was President Jefferson’s secretary of state and Jefferson was head of the Democratic Party while Chief Justice Marshall and Marbury were Federalists, President Jefferson was almost certain to direct Madison to refuse to deliver the commission to Marbury. If the Court required Madison to deliver the commission and Madison refused, the Court had no power to force him to comply, and, therefore the Court would look weak. If the Court did not act, it would look like the justices made their decision out of the fear that Madison would not obey their decision.
The justices struck a middle ground between these alternatives in their opinion, written by Chief Justice Marshall. The
Court ruled that Marbury was entitled to his commission, but that
according to the Constitution, the Court did not have the authority to
require Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury in this case. They
found that the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with the Constitution
because it gave the Supreme Court more authority than it was given under
the Constitution. The dispute centered around the difference between the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction and its appellate jurisdiction. If
the Court has original jurisdiction over a case, it means that the case
can go directly to the Supreme Court and the justices are the first
ones to decide the case. If the Court has appellate jurisdiction, however, the case must first be argued and decided by judges in the lower courts. Only
then can it be appealed to the Supreme Court, where the justices decide
whether the rulings of the lower courts were correct. Marbury
brought his lawsuit under the Court’s original jurisdiction, but the
justices ruled that it would be an improper exercise of the Court’s
original jurisdiction to issue the writ of mandamus in this case.
The Judiciary Act of
1789 authorized the Supreme Court to “issue writs of mandamus … to
persons holding office under the authority of the United States.” A writ of mandamus is a command by a superior court to a public official or lower court to perform a special duty. The Court said this law attempted to give the Court the authority to issue a writ of mandamus, an exercise of its original jurisdiction, to Secretary of State Madison. However,
Article III, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution, as the Court read
it, authorizes the Supreme Court to exercise original jurisdiction only
in cases involving “ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,
and those [cases] in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.” The dispute between Marbury and Madison did not involve ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, or states. Therefore,
according to the Constitution, the Supreme Court did not have the
authority to exercise its original jurisdiction in this case. Thus the Judiciary Act of 1789 and the Constitution were in conflict with each other.
Declaring the
Constitution “superior, paramount law,” the Supreme Court ruled that
when ordinary laws conflict with the Constitution, they must be struck
down. Furthermore, it is the job
of judges, including the justices of the Supreme Court, to interpret
laws and determine when they conflict with the Constitution. According
to the Court, the Constitution gives the judicial branch the power to
strike down laws passed by Congress, the legislative branch. This is the principle of judicial review. Thus,
it has been recognized since this decision that it is “emphatically the
province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
Through this decision,
Chief Justice Marshall established the judicial branch as an equal
partner with the executive and legislative branches within the
developing system of government. By
refusing to require Madison and Jefferson to deliver the commission to
Marbury, he did not give Madison the opportunity to disobey the Court,
making it look weak. And, by
declaring the Court’s power through the principle of judicial review, he
made it clear that the justices did not make their decision out of
fear. Instead, he announced that
the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and established the
Supreme Court as the final authority for interpreting it.
No comments:
Post a Comment