How did Marshall rule in marbury vs. Madison?

Answer 1

In Marbury v. Madison, (1803), The Court held that William Marbury and his co-plaintiffs had a right to their commissions, but that the Supreme Court did not have authority to issue a writ of mandamus under original (trial) jurisdiction compelling Secretary of State Madison to deliver the necessary paperwork. Marbury, et al., must first file their case in a lower court.

This decision was based on the answer to three legal questions:

1. Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands?

   The Court determined that Marbury had a right to his commission, per An Act Concerning the District of Columbia that Congress passed in 1801, as well as Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, which granted the President the right to make judicial nominations. Marbury's nomination had already been approved by the Senate, then signed an sealed by the former President, making it official.

2. If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?

   Because the answer to the first question was that Marbury was properly appointed as a justice of the peace, his legal rights had been violated when Madison withheld the paperwork necessary to assume office.

   Further, the laws of the United States afforded Marbury a remedy to this violation.

3. If they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing from this court?

   The Supreme Court determined it did not have original jurisdiction over the case, but appellate, and therefore could not issue a writ of mandamus. Marbury had to initiate legal action against Madison in the lower federal courts before the Supreme Court could review his case.

Chief Justice Marshall held that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional because Congress attempted to grant the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over writs of mandamus against US government officials, an authority not specifically relegated to the court in Article III of the constitution.

Marshall also declared the Judicial Branch had authority to check the power of the Executive and Legislative branches by determining whether laws or actions conform with constitutional principles.

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each."

-Chief Justice John Marshall

Case Citation:

Marbury v. Madison, 137 US 5 (1803)

Answer 2

John Marshall ruled that Marbury was entitled to his commission, but stated the US Supreme Court didn't have original jurisdiction over the case (could not hear the case as a trial court), and lacked authority to issue the necessary writ. Marbury was advised to refile his case in a lower court, then appeal to the Supreme Court, if necessary. This allowed both sides to feel partially vindicated.

However, the conflict in Marbury v. Madison, (1803) was much larger than whether Marbury and his co-plaintiffs were entitled to their commissions. There were two unwritten issues complicating the court's decision. The first was Marshall had to maneuver around the likelihood that Jefferson/Madison would never agree to reissue the discarded commissions, and the Supreme Court lacked any authority to enforce such an order. If they failed at extracting a commission from Jefferson/Madison, the Judicial Branch would be perceived as weak.

The second issue involved a victory for the Court itself. Jefferson's stubbornness afforded Marshall an opportunity to give the new President the narrow decision he wanted, but also delivered an embarrassing public lecture to Jefferson and Congress. It also allowed Marshall to find grounds for overturning a section of a Congressional Act as unconstitutional, supplying the Court both with the reason for not issuing the order and the opportunity to formally establish their right of judicial review.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States. All laws must comply with the principles outline in that document. If there is a conflict, then either the Constitution was wrong or the Act of Congress was unconstitutional. The Constitution (which was ratified by Congress and the States) declares itself the Supreme Law, so the unconstitutional legislation had to be nullified.

Case Citation:

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)

Answer 3

Chief Justice John Marshall used the Constitutional process called Constitutional review to rectify a problem caused by Thomas Jefferson.