Marbury v. Madison PDF (1803) - Supreme Court Case - Oyez

Marbury v. Madison | Oyez Oyez LII Supreme Court Resources Justia Supreme Court Center marbury v madison CASES JUSTICES MEDIA NEWSLETTERS...

Marbury v. Madison | Oyez Oyez LII Supreme Court Resources Justia Supreme Court Center marbury v madison CASES JUSTICES MEDIA NEWSLETTERS NEW: Brown Revisited Marbury v. Madison OPINIONS SYLLABUS VIEW CASE PETITIONER RESPONDENT William Marbury James Madison, Secretary of State LOCATION The White House DOCKET NO. DECIDED BY 5us137 Marshall Court CITATION ADVOCATES 5 US 137 (1803) Charles Lee for Marbury https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/5us137[10/3/2024 10:15:44 AM] Marbury v. Madison | Oyez ARGUED Levi Lincoln, Sr. Feb 11, 1803 for Madison DECIDED Feb 24, 1803 Facts of the case Thomas Jeferson defeated John Adams in the 1800 presidential election. Before Jeferson took ofce on March 4, 1801, Adams and Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which created new courts, added judges, and gave the president more control over appointment of judges. The Act was essentially an attempt by Adams and his party to frusrate his successor, as he used the act to appoint 16 new circuit judges and 42 new jusices of the peace. The appointees were approved by the Senate, but they would not be valid until their commissions were delivered by the Secretary of State. William Marbury had been appointed Jusice of the Peace in the Disrict of Columbia, but his commission was not delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to compel the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver the documents. Marbury, joined by three other similarly situated appointees, petitioned for a writ of mandamus compelling the delivery of the commissions. Quesion 1. Do the plaintiffs have a right to receive their commissions? 2. Can they sue for their commissions in court? 3. Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order the delivery of their commissions? Conclusion Sort: by seniority by ideology https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/5us137[10/3/2024 10:15:44 AM] Marbury v. Madison | Oyez UNANIMOUS DECISION FOR MARBURY MAJORITY OPINION BY JOHN MARSHALL Though Marbury was entitled to it, the Court was unable to grant it because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 conficted with Article III Section 2 of the U.S. Consitution and was therefore null and void. Cushing Chase Moore Paterson Washington Marshall The Court found that Madison’s refusal to deliver the commission was illegal, but did not order Madison to hand over Marbury’s commission via writ of mandamus. Insead, the Court held that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 enabling Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself unconsitutional, since it purported to extend the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III, Section 2, esablished. Marshall expanded that a writ of mandamus was the proper way to seek a remedy, but concluded the Court could not issue it. Marshall reasoned that the Judiciary Act of 1789 conficted with the Consitution. Congress did not have power to modify the Consitution through regular legislation because Supremacy Clause places the Consitution before the laws. In so holding, Marshall esablished the principle of judicial review, i.e., the power to declare a law unconsitutional. Cite this page APA Bluebook Chicago MLA "Marbury v. Madison." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/5us137. Accessed 3 Oct. 2024. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/5us137[10/3/2024 10:15:44 AM]