Quick Summary
William Marbury (plaintiff) was appointed Justice of the Peace by outgoing President John Adams, but his commission was not delivered before Adams left office. When Thomas Jefferson became President, his Secretary of State, James Madison (defendant), refused to deliver the commission.
The issue before the court was whether Marbury had a legal right to his commission and whether the Supreme Court could compel its delivery.
The Court concluded that while Marbury had a right to his commission, it could not issue a writ of mandamus because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional.
Facts of the Case
In the final days of President John Adams’s administration, he appointed several individuals to judicial positions, including William Marbury as Justice of the Peace for the District of Columbia. These appointments were approved by Congress, and commissions were signed by Adams and sealed with the United States seal by the Secretary of State. However, the delivery of these commissions was not completed before Adams left office.
When Thomas Jefferson assumed the presidency, he instructed his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver the outstanding commissions. Marbury, whose commission had not been delivered, petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to compel Madison to deliver his commission.
The cause of action was based on Marbury’s claim that he had a vested legal right to the commission once it was signed and sealed. He sought relief in the form of a court order directing Madison to deliver the commission. In defense, Madison contended that since the commissions were not delivered before Adams left office, they were void.
Procedural Posture and History
- William Marbury filed an action against James Madison in the United States Supreme Court, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel delivery of his commission.
- Upon reviewing the affidavits and arguments, the Supreme Court issued a rule requiring Madison to show cause why a mandamus should not be issued.
- Madison did not show cause, and Marbury moved for a mandamus.
- The case reached the United States Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction as authorized by the Judiciary Act of 1789.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
- Whether Marbury had a vested legal right to his commission once it was signed by President Adams and sealed by the Secretary of State, and if so,
- Whether the Supreme Court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus compelling Secretary Madison to deliver the commission.
Rule of Law
According to Article III of the U.S. Constitution which outlines the judicial power of the federal courts and from the Judiciary Act of 1789 which authorized the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus. The specific constitutional provisions in question involve whether an act of Congress (the Judiciary Act) can extend the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond what is defined in Article III.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined whether Marbury had a legal right to his commission. It concluded that once President Adams had signed and sealed Marbury’s commission, Marbury had a vested legal right to it. The acts necessary to complete Marbury’s appointment were fulfilled when Adams signed and sealed the commission.
However, on the issue of whether the Supreme Court could issue a writ of mandamus compelling Madison to deliver the commission, Chief Justice John Marshall reasoned that although Marbury had a right to his commission and that right had been violated, Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorized such writs under the Court’s original jurisdiction, was unconstitutional. The Constitution does not grant Congress power to extend the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond what is set forth in Article III.
Conclusion
The United States Supreme Court held that while Marbury was entitled to his commission, the Court did not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandanus because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional. Thus, Marbury’s request for relief was denied.
Key Takeaways
- The signing and sealing of a commission by the President confers a vested right to an appointee.
- The Supreme Court has the power to review and invalidate laws and actions by other branches if they conflict with the Constitution (judicial review).
- The Judiciary Act of 1789 was partially unconstitutional as it extended the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what Article III of the Constitution permitted.
Relevant FAQs of this case
What constitutes a vested legal right and how is it protected under the law?
A vested legal right arises when a person acquires a definitive, unconditional interest under the law that cannot arbitrarily be taken away without due process. To protect such rights, the legal system provides remedies, such as injunctions or damages, to redress any infringement.
- For example: If a person has been promised a pension that has matured, they have a vested right to receive those payments. The law protects this right, ensuring that the person can legally enforce the payment against the pension fund or employer.
How does judicial review establish checks and balances among government branches?
Judicial review empowers courts to scrutinize the constitutionality of legislative acts and executive decisions, ensuring that they don’t exceed their lawful authority. As a check, it maintains the equilibrium of power by invalidating actions that violate constitutional provisions.
- For example: If Congress passes a law restricting speech in a way that contradicts First Amendment protections, the courts can declare that law unconstitutional, thereby upholding the balance of power and protecting citizens’ rights.
Under what circumstances can a law be declared unconstitutional?
A law can be declared unconstitutional if it violates principles enshrined in the Constitution or exceeds the powers granted by it. The judiciary interprets the Constitution and applies its tenets to determine whether legislation aligns with constitutional mandates.
- For example: A state law mandating that only certain religious groups may hold public office would be unconstitutional, as it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits governmental endorsement of religion.
References
Was this case brief helpful?