Marbury v Madison, When the Supreme Court Gave itself the Powers of Judicial Review
On February 24th, 1803, in the Capitol building in Washington, DC, the Supreme Court delivered its opinion in the case Marbury v Madison. They effectively gave themselves the power of judicial review for actions within the government. This power would later prove to be necessary and effective. But, how did we get here?
Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, the incumbent and second President of the United States went head-to-head in the Presidential election of 1800. Both parties fought hard to gain votes, but in the end, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams. However, John didn't go without fight. Instead, before Jefferson could take office, on March 4th, 1801, Adams signed into law a piece of legislation known as the Judiciary Act of 1801. This law specifically created new courts, added judges, and gave the President a more extensive control over appointees. This was done in order to frustrate the new administration, and Adams used the act to appoint 16 circuit judges and 42 justices of the peace. The Senate, being the arm of government with this responsibility, approved of these appointees. However, their commission would have to be delivered by the Secretary of State, who just so happened to be in the new Jefferson administration. The Jefferson administration then proceeded to sign into law the Judiciary Act of 1802, which essentially restored the Judiciary Act of 1789.
William Marbury had been appointed as a Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia, but failed to receive his commission, as it was never delivered. So, he petitioned the Supreme Court to compel the SecState, who was James Madison at the time, to deliver the documents. Three others in the same situation joined Marbury to file a writ of mandamus, an order used to compel the government to fulfill a duty they are legally required to fulfill.
What were the questions posed to the courts?
In this case, there were three questions the courts needed to answer:
Do the plaintiffs have a right to receive their commission?
Can they sue for their commissions in court?
Does the Supreme Court have the authority to ordet the delivery of their commission?
Simply put, the Courts found that Madison's refusal to deliver the commissions was not in line with the law, but they did not order him to hand over the commissions via a writ of mandamus. Instead, they actually ruled that the act of Marbury bringing the case before the Supreme Court under the ability given by the Judiciary Act of 1789, instead of starting in lower courts, was unconstitutional. They reasoned that it conflicted with the original jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2, as it attempted to extend the jurisdiction. They later argued that Congress could not modify the Constitution via regular legislation, as the Supremacy Clause placed the Constitution before any laws made.
Due to this holding, the new principle of Judicial Review was established, which allowed the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional.
We see this in our modern day lives in the United States all the time. Laws are often challenged under a variety of constitutional claims.
Fun fact! The 3rd amendment is the least litigated amendment, while the 14th amendment is the most litigated amendment.
In writing this post, I utilized Oyez.org and Justia to provide the necessary information.
