Marbury v. Madison (1803)

The U.S. Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the principle of judicial review—the power of the federal courts to declare legislative and executive acts unconstitutional. The unanimous opinion was written by Chief Justice John Marshall.

President John Adams named William Marbury as one of forty-two justices of the peace on March 2, 1801. The Senate confirmed the nominations the following day, March 3, which was Adams's last full day in office. However, acting Secretary of State John Marshall failed to deliver four of the commissions, including Marbury’s. When Thomas Jefferson took office on March 4, he ordered that the four remaining commissions be withheld. Marbury sued the new secretary of state, James Madison, in order to obtain his commission. The Supreme Court issued its opinion on February 24, 1803.

One of the key responsibilities of the First Congress, which met in March 1789, was to establish a federal court system. In September of that year, Congress took significant steps to flesh out the Constitution with the Judiciary Act of 1789.

This new law created a more comprehensive court system than many anticipated. It set up a three-tiered structure that still exists today in a revised format. At the bottom were the district courts, now known as the United States District Courts, with one federal judge in each state except Massachusetts and Virginia, which each had two judges. Above them were three circuit courts, now called the United States Courts of Appeal, designated for the Northeast, the middle states, and the South. Initially, these circuit courts did not have their own judges; instead, they were staffed by the district judge from the state hosting the court and two Supreme Court justices who traveled throughout their assigned regions. At the top was the Supreme Court, comprising five associate justices and a chief justice.

The district courts had the authority to handle minor federal offenses and several civil disputes, especially those related to maritime law. The circuit courts dealt with more serious offenses and could review district court rulings. State courts continued to manage cases under state law and could also handle federal question cases that involved the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. The outcomes of these cases could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, as could decisions made by the federal circuit courts.

The creators of the Judiciary Act aimed to strike a balance. They set up a broad federal court system to enhance the visibility and authority of the new national government, while also acknowledging the role of state courts in dealing with significant federal issues initially.

Midnight appointments refer to the federal judicial appointments made by President John Adams and the outgoing Federalist Congress during the final months of Adams’s presidency. A writ of mandamus is a court order directing a government official or lower court to fulfill a specific, mandatory duty.

While neither the Constitution nor the Judiciary Act clearly defined the courts’ authority to nullify federal or state laws for being unconstitutional, some delegates at the Constitutional Convention assumed that the Supreme Court would possess such power. As Alexander Hamilton noted in Federalist 78, Congress derives its authority from the Constitution, which represents the will of the people and is therefore primary law. Consequently, Congress cannot contravene the Constitution, and it is the duty of the courts to safeguard “the power of the people” against legislative overreach. Despite Hamilton’s public endorsement of judicial review, the Supreme Court did not exercise this power until the pivotal case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803.

This complex case arose after Thomas Jefferson triumphed over sitting President John Adams in the 1800 election. During that era, presidents served for almost three months after the electoral vote was finalized in December, even if they lost. President Adams utilized this period to make Federalist appointments to the judiciary, which became known as midnight appointments.

William Marbury was appointed as a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. Although the Senate approved the appointment and the president signed the commission, John Marshall, who was Secretary of State under Adams, did not deliver the commission to Marbury before leaving office. In the closing days of his presidency, Adams appointed Marshall as Chief Justice of the United States. These last-minute appointments angered the incoming Democratic-Republicans.

When James Madison became Jefferson’s Secretary of State, he was responsible for delivering Marbury’s commission. However, he refused to do so, fearing that Adams was trying to fill the judiciary with Federalists. As a result, Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus, which is a command for a public official to fulfill their duty, directing Madison to deliver the commission.

In a unanimous decision, Chief Justice Marshall stated that while Marbury had a legal right to his judgeship, the Supreme Court could not issue a writ of mandamus in this instance. He explained that the section of the Judiciary Act that allowed the Supreme Court to issue such orders was unconstitutional, as it exceeded the Court's original jurisdiction as defined by the Constitution. Since the Constitution is the highest law, any legislation that contradicts it is invalid.

Marshall's reasoning echoed that of Hamilton. He asserted that the Constitution, as the "fundamental and paramount law of the nation," sets clear limits on Congressional power. Legislative acts that conflict with the Constitution do not hold legal validity. Marshall famously declared that it is the role of the judicial branch to interpret the law. He emphasized that the Constitution requires judges and public officials to uphold it, questioning how they could do so if they allowed a law that contradicts the Constitution to remain in effect. He also pointed out that Article VI of the Constitution specifies that "the supreme Law of the Land" includes only those laws enacted in accordance with it.

Although the Court strongly defended the principle of judicial review, its ruling did not compel any action from Jefferson's administration. While it acknowledged Marbury's right to the position, it stated that the Court could not order Madison to deliver the commission. Historians suggest that had the Court made such a demand, the administration might have ignored it. Marshall effectively affirmed the Court's authority without risking non-compliance from the president.

President Jefferson privately rejected the idea that the Supreme Court held ultimate authority over the constitutionality of laws as a response to Marbury v. Madison. In 1804, he argued that if judges could determine what laws were constitutional not just for themselves but also for the legislature and executive branches, it would create a tyrannical judiciary. Jefferson believed this undermined the intended separation of powers laid out in the Constitution. He stated three years later that the three branches of government were meant to be equal and independent, with no branch controlling the actions of another. Jefferson expressed a desire to publicly challenge the ruling in Marbury v. Madison, asserting it was not a valid law.

Marbury v. Madison marked the start of a series of significant rulings by the Marshall Court. From 1801 to 1835, Chief Justice John Marshall left a lasting impact on the Court and American democracy. Born in Virginia in 1755, he was a Revolutionary War officer and participated in key political events, including the Virginia Assembly and the state ratifying convention for the Constitution. He briefly served in the House of Representatives and as secretary of state before being appointed chief justice by John Adams. Marshall worked to unify his colleagues on controversial topics and authored important rulings on judicial review, implied powers, and national supremacy, earning the title “The Great Chief Justice.”

While it took 50 years after Marbury for the Supreme Court to overturn a federal law again, the Court began nullifying state laws and state supreme court decisions starting in 1810, claiming they were inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution. These rulings sparked even more debate than Marbury did, with critics arguing they disrupted federalism by placing federal courts above state laws and courts. Supporters contended that the Supreme Court was simply upholding the Constitution's supremacy within the federal system. In contemporary times, the Court’s most contentious decisions have often invalidated state laws rather than federal laws.