Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137

United States Supreme Court

1803

Chapter

1

Title

The Role of the Supreme Court in the Constitutional Order

Page

29

Topic

The Basic Framework

Quick Notes

At a prior term, the Court granted an applicant a rule directing the Secretary of State of the United States to show cause why a mandamus should not issue commanding him to deliver to the applicant his commission as a justice of the peace. No cause was shown, so the applicant moved for a mandamus.

Book Name

Constitutional Law : Stone, Seidman, Sunstein, Tushnet.  ISBN:  978-0-7355-7719-0.

Issue

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

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

o         3dly. If they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing from this court?  No.

Procedure

Supreme

o         The rule was discharged

Facts

Discussion

Key Phrases

Rules

o         On his way out of office President John Adams appointed William Marbury as a justice of the peace.

o         The Federalist Senate confirmed the appointments of Adams last-minute appointees.

o         The formal commissions had not been delivered when the new Republican President Thomas Jefferson assumed office.

o         Jefferson refused to deliver the commission.

o         Marbury sought a writ of mandamus to compel Secretary of State Madison.

o    writ of mandamus - an extraordinary writ commanding an official to perform a ministerial act that the law recognizes as an absolute duty and not a matter for the official's discretion; used only when all other judicial remedies fail.

Chief Justice Marshall

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

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

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

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

o    First it is necessary to determine whether he has been appointed office.

o    If he has been appointed, the law continues him in office for 5 years, and he is entitled to the possession of those evidences of office, which became is property.

o    When a commission has been signed by the president, that appointment is made; and that the commission is complete, when the seal of the US has affixed to it by the secretary of state.

o    But when the officer is not removable at the will of the executive, the appointment is not revocable, and cannot be annulled. It has conferred legal rights which cannot be resumed.

o    To withhold his commission, therefore, is an act deemed by the court not warranted by law, but violative of a vested legal right.

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

o    Yes.

o    The law grants Marbury a remedy.

o    The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury.

o    One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection.

Rule

o    Where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the law for a remedy.

Court

o    The President, by signing the commission, appointed Marbury a justice of the peace and that the appointment conferred on him a legal right to the office for the space of 5 years.

o    Thus, having this legal right to the office, he has a consequent right to the commission, a refusal to deliver which is a plain violation of that right for which the laws of the country afford him a remedy.

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

Depend on

1.     The nature of the writ applied for.

2.     The power of this Court.

1.   The Nature of the Writ

o    To render the mandamus a proper remedy, the officer to whom it is directed, must be one to whom, on legal principles, such writ may be directed; and the person applying for it must be without any other specific and legal remedy.

To the officer to whom it would be directed

o    The act to establish the judicial courts of the United States authorizes the supreme court "to issue writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States."

2.   The Power of the Court

o    The Constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United States in one Supreme Court, and such inferior courts as Congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish.

o    This power is expressly extended to all cases arising under the laws of the United States; and consequently, in some form, may be exercised over the present case; because the right claimed is given by a law of the United States.

o    In the distribution of this power it is declared that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party.

o    In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.

Mandamus Rule

o    To enable this court to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction.

If Law and Constitution Conflict

o    The courts are to regard the constitution, and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Judicial Power

o    The judicial power of the US is extended to all cases arising under the constitution.

Repugnant to Constitution is Void!!!

o         The particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

The rule must be discharged.

Summary

o    The Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus.

o    To enable this court then to issue a mandamus, it must be shown

o    to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or

o    to be necessary to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction.

o    It is the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted, and does not create that case.

o    Although, therefore, a mandamus may be directed to courts, yet to issue such a writ to an officer for the delivery of a paper is, in effect, the same as to sustain an original action for that paper, and is therefore a matter of original jurisdiction

Notes

1.     Background

• Adams (Federalist) was defeated by Jefferson (Republican).
• Federalist responded by attempting to control the federal judiciary.
• Congress enacted the Circuit Court Act.  (Later repealed)
  • Create 16 new circuit court judges.
  • Eliminating the circuit-riding duties of the Supreme Court.
• Congress also decreased the size to he Supreme Court to deny Jefferson from appointing a successor to Justice Cushing.
• Congress enacting another statute creating 42 positions for justices of the peace. (Left intact)

2.     Methods, antecedents.

• The actual holding of Marbury is that the Supreme Court is without power to direct the President to deliver Marburys Commission.
• Judicial review was therefore established in a case in which the Court concluded that is had not power to do anything to remedy official illegality.

Class Notes