Was a compromise reached between Marbury and Madison in the Marbury v Madison case?

Answer 1

Not exactly. A compromise implies two or more parties working together to achieve a solution that partially satisfies, and is acceptable to, each party. In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice Marshall made a unilateral decision that benefited the US Supreme Court, while simultaneously ensuring neither party to the dispute would challenge the outcome, because each side would be partially vindicated. In that sense, Marshall's decision masqueraded as a compromise without truly being one.

1. The Court held Marbury and the other plaintiffs were entitled to their commissions because they had been properly issued and approved by the sitting President and Senate. However, the second part of the Court's ruling prevented the Supreme Court from ordering Jefferson and Madison deliver the commissions, requiring instead that the plaintiffs refile their case in a lower court. The plaintiffs didn't complain about the decision, but they never refiled the case.
2. The Court also held that Congress had overstepped its constitutional authority by giving the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (orders compelling officials to take a specified action) to government officials. Marshall was emphatic that Article III designated specific classes of case over which the Supreme Court had original jurisdiction, and Congress could not change this fact with a simple act of legislation. Since the Court couldn't uphold a law that was repugnant to the Constitution, it declared Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional and nullified it.

   The Court's refusal to issue a writ of mandamus relieved the Jefferson administration of any obligation to deliver the commissions (which they had no intention of doing, anyway), and also removed the potential for similar future conflicts between the Judicial and Executive branches.

   Marshall put Jefferson in the position of either having to object to a decision that supported the President's agenda -- or accept it. Jefferson chose to remain publicly silent on the issue, which appeared to grant the Court tacit approval to overturn acts of Congress as unconstitutional. Although Jefferson strongly opposed the doctrine judicial review and was infuriated by Marshall's plan, he had made mistake of downplaying the importance of Marbury's case, and was unable to refute the Chief Justice's logic without making himself look foolish and creating open conflict between the branches of government and opposing political factions.

So, what appears to be a compromise position for the parties involved in the case was more likely a shrewd political strategy that strengthened the Judicial branch and allowed the Supreme Court to play an important role in the development of the nation.

The official citation of the case is Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)