Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Friday, September 11, 2009 at 11:59PM Read the decision here.
Issue. Can the Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus (basically an order to force an official to do an act) to Secretary of State James Madison to deliver a commission to Marbury who had been appointed and approved as a magistrate judge in the District of Columbia but the commission was not delivered?
Background. Before leaving office, John Adams made several appointments to judgeships including one to Marbury who was appointed to be a magistrate in the District of Columbia. The Senate approved the appointment and the commission was sealed. All that was left was to deliver the commission. The previous Secretary of State forgot to deliver the commission and James Madison, the new Secretary of State, refused to deliver the commission. Marbury sued in the Supreme Court to compel Secretary Madison to deliver the commission (through a writ of mandamus). Section 13 of the Judiciary Act gave the Supreme Court the power to "issue writs of mandamus in cases warranted by the principles of law."
Court's Analysis. The Supreme Court examined three questions: 1.) Did Marbury have a right to the commission; 2.) If Marbury is entitled to the writ, do the laws of the country afford him a remedy; and 3.) If Marbury has a remedy, is it a writ of mandamus coming from the Supreme Court.
On the first question, the Supreme Court found that delivery of the commission was only a ministerial act and that he was entitled to the commission once he was confirmed by the Senate and the commission received the seal. The fact that the commission was not delivered is immaterial.
On the second question, the Supreme Court found that the laws of the country did afford Marbury a remedy in having the commission delivered and, based on the laws of the country, the remedy is a writ of mandamus to Secretary Madison.
On the final question, the Supreme Court found that it did not have the power to issue the writ of mandamus because the section of the Federal Judiciary Act which gave the Supreme Court that power was unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly laid out those cases where the Supreme Court had original jurisdiction (cases involving ambassadors, other public ministers and counsel, and those cases in which a state is a party) and in all other cases the Supreme Court had appellate jurisdiction. Congress could not pass a law that alters that balance. Since the Federal Judiciary Act gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus, that section of the act ran afoul of the Constitution; and, therefore it could not be a law.
In defending the right of the Supreme Court to invalidate an act of Congress as contrary to the Constitution, the Court noted that any law that violates the term of the Constitution is not a law at all. If such acts could be law, then the Constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper. It is the role of the courts to determine what is actually law and since the Supreme Court is the highest law of the land, it was responsible for determining if a Congressional act conforms to the Constitution and is thus a law. If Congress's act does not conform with the Constitution it is not a law and it is the duty of the Supreme Court to rule as so.
My Analysis. Even kids in grade school history know that Marbury v. Madison is the case where the Supreme Court held that it had the power to review acts of Congress (later extended to state laws) to determine if those acts conform to the Constitution - judicial review. Even though Judicial Review is not an explicit power given to the courts in the Constitution, it makes structural sense. You cannot leave it up to the legislature to determine whether the laws it passes conform with the Constitution. There is a need to check the legislature. Of course, the executive could check the legislature by vetoing a bill. But, it really is the purpose of the judiciary to interpret laws and to determine if something is a law. It just seems like a natural decision.