--- title: "Marbury v. Madison" type: Landmark Case source: https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/marbury-v-madison --- # Marbury v. Madison Marbury v. Madison is the foundational case establishing the power of judicial review, enabling federal courts to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. It transformed the judiciary from the weakest branch into a co-equal partner in governance. The decision remains the single most important case in American constitutional law. ## Citation 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) ## Year 1803 ## Court Supreme Court of the United States ## Facts William Marbury was appointed as a Justice of the Peace for the District of Columbia by outgoing President John Adams in the final days of his administration. His commission was signed and sealed but never delivered before the new administration of President Thomas Jefferson took office. Secretary of State James Madison, under Jefferson's direction, refused to deliver the commission. Marbury filed an original action in the Supreme Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel delivery. ## Procedural History Marbury filed suit directly in the Supreme Court, invoking original jurisdiction under Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which purported to grant the Court the power to issue writs of mandamus. ## Issue Does the Supreme Court have the authority to review acts of Congress and declare them unconstitutional, and does Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutionally expand the Court's original jurisdiction beyond what Article III permits? ## Holding The Court held that while Marbury had a right to his commission, the Court could not grant the remedy because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional insofar as it purported to expand the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction beyond the bounds set by Article III. Chief Justice Marshall declared that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. ## Reasoning Chief Justice Marshall's opinion proceeded in three steps. First, he found that Marbury had a vested right to the commission once it was signed and sealed. Second, he determined that the laws of the country afforded Marbury a remedy for the violation of that right. Third, and most critically, Marshall concluded that the specific remedy Marbury sought -- a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction -- was unavailable because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act conflicted with Article III of the Constitution. Because the Constitution is paramount law, any legislative act repugnant to it must be void, and courts must refuse to enforce it. ## Impact Marbury established judicial review as a cornerstone of American constitutional governance, empowering courts at all levels to strike down legislation that conflicts with the Constitution. The principle has been applied thousands of times and has become the basis for constitutional adjudication worldwide. Without this case, the Constitution would lack an effective enforcement mechanism against legislative overreach. ## Key Quotes - It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. - A law repugnant to the Constitution is void. - The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. ## Related Cases - mcculloch-v-maryland - cooper-v-aaron - martin-v-hunters-lessee - stuart-v-laird ## Exam Relevance Marbury is virtually guaranteed to appear on any Constitutional Law exam, particularly in questions about the scope and legitimacy of judicial review. Professors frequently test whether students understand the logical structure of Marshall's argument and the political context that shaped the decision. Students should be prepared to analyze hypotheticals asking whether courts can or should exercise judicial review in novel contexts. ## Study Tips - Master the three-part structure of Marshall's opinion: right, remedy, and jurisdiction. - Understand the political brilliance of the decision -- Marshall avoided a confrontation with Jefferson while establishing the most important judicial power. - Be able to articulate both the arguments for and against judicial review as a matter of constitutional design. - Connect Marbury to modern debates about judicial activism versus judicial restraint. ## Doctrine Established Judicial Review --- Source: [Marbury v. Madison — CaseBriefly](https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/marbury-v-madison)