Marbury v. Madison 5 US 137 (1803)
By Ethan Harris ‘27
Marbury v. Madison is arguably the most important United States Supreme Court case in history. The most important aspect of the Supreme Court today is the process of judicial review. Judicial review is the Supreme Court’s ability to grant actions by the legislative or executive branch as unconstitutional. Whether that be legislation, declarations, or disputes between parties, the Supreme Court has final say on what is or isn’t constitutional.
Marbury v. Madison was decided by the Marshall Court, which was the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John Marshall from 1801 to 1835. John Marshall, a Virginia native, is one of a few men who was able to serve in all three branches of the federal government. He was first elected a member of the House of Representatives in 1799, representing Virginia. After only a year in office, President John Adams appointed Marshall to Secretary of State. After only ten months in the cabinet, Marshall was nominated by Adams and confirmed by the Senate to be the fourth Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. He held the position until his death in 1835, making him the longest serving Chief Justice in history.
In 1803, John Marshall’s court consisted of five associate justices, as the Supreme Court was not expanded to nine justices until the Judiciary Act of 1869. The five justices were William Cushing, William Paterson, Samuel Chase, Bushrod Washington, and Alfred Moore. John Marshall’s court was pivotal in establishing expansions and limits on various powers throughout the U.S. government. He greatly expanded the court's power, while drastically specifying the role of Congress.
The facts of Marbury v. Madison began with a rivalry between political parties. The federalists, led by John Adams, had just lost the presidential race to the Democratic Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson. Out of spite and in an attempt to limit Jefferson’s future power, John Adams created 16 new federal judgeships. He appointed fellow federalists whom he knew would make it difficult for Jefferson to achieve his political agenda. One of those judgeships was given to William Marbury. Marbury was a Maryland businessman and a strong advocate for the federalist party. He was appointed by Adams to serve as the Justice of the Peace in Washington D.C. However, his appointment was among what historians have referred to as the “Midnight Appointments.” These were several judicial appointments made by John Adams at the very last minute of his presidency, and that is meant literally. William Marbury’s appointment occurred on the evening of John Adams’ last day as president. Although his appointment was written on paper, the chaos of a presidential turnover mixed with Adam’s eleventh-hour appointments resulted in the Secretary of State’s failure to deliver Marbury’s commission, which was the last thing needed to officially appoint Marbury.
The very next day, Thomas Jefferson took office. He quickly ordered his new Secretary of State, James Madison, to not deliver Marbury’s commission. Although the delivery of his commission was simply a formality, Marbury and some of his fellow appointees could not work as judges until their commissions were delivered. As a result, Marbury sued James Madison to get his commission delivered by a writ of mandamus issued by the Supreme Court. A writ of mandamus, according to the Legal Information Institute, is an, “order from a court to an inferior government official ordering the government official to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion.” Marbury sought the Supreme Court to force Madison to deliver his appointment, as that was part of his role as Secretary of State.
To understand the questions regarding this case, you first have to understand the two sources of law the Supreme Court had to work with. First is the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article III, Section Two. It states, “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
Simply put, jurisdiction is the power a court has to hear or decide on a case. Original jurisdiction is the power to hear a case from the beginning. The best example of original jurisdiction is the trial courts around the United States, where cases start from the beginning. Appellate jurisdiction is the power to review decisions made by lower courts. The best example of this is, well, the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court usually hears cases that have already been decided, but one side of the case has appealed, arguing that the lower court’s decision was based on insufficient facts or incorrect procedures. The constitution tells us that the Supreme Court’s primary role is to serve as an appellate court. However, there are ways in which the Supreme Court may act as a court of original jurisdiction. In cases where the party is a state, or cases where ambassadors, consuls, or other public ministers are affected, the Supreme Court may hear the case from the beginning. William Marbury is none of these, and yet he asked the Supreme Court to act as an original jurisdiction court, which will indeed influence the court’s decision regarding this case.
The second source of law needed to understand the decisions of this case is the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789. Signed by George Washington, this piece of legislation established what is our modern day federal court system. It created the lower courts and defined the roles of all levels of our judiciary system. In doing so, it defined some of the powers of the Supreme Court. It expanded the powers of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction set out in the U.S. Constitution. The act states, “The Supreme Court…shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts, when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and 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.”
Under this section of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, it specifies that the Supreme Court may issue writs of mandamus in cases of original jurisdiction. This was exactly what William Marbury was thinking at the time. But Marbury’s thinking would soon clash with the thinking of John Marshall.
When deciding Marbury v. Madison, John Marshall asked three questions. First, does William Marbury have a legal right to be granted his position in the federal judiciary? The Supreme Court’s answer was yes. The second question was, if Marbury did have a legal right to his position, does he also have a right to be granted his writ of mandamus as a legal remedy? Again, the Supreme Court answered yes. The third and final question is the most important aspect of this case. If Marbury deserves a remedy regarding his legal right, can the Supreme Court grant that remedy? The Supreme Court unanimously said no.
So how can this be? Under the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, the answer should be yes, as the Supreme Court has the power to grant writs of mandamus under cases of original jurisdiction. The problem occurs when we look at the contradiction between the Federal Judiciary of 1789 and the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution claims that the only ones who can bring cases which are to be originally heard by the Supreme Court are states or ambassadors, which, once again, William Marbury and James Madison are neither. For these reasons, John Marshall and the Supreme Court found that Article 13 of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, a piece of legislation created and approved by both Congress and the President, was unconstitutional, and therefore is null and void. This is precisely what the process of judicial review looks like.
The impact of this case cannot be overstated. Judicial review is the centerpiece of the Supreme Court today, and for many people, it is hard to imagine a Supreme Court unable to review whether or not legislation is constitutional. The result of establishing judicial review can be seen in practically every Supreme Court decision made since then. Whether that be regarding abortion, discrimination, powers of Congress, or powers of the presidency, the Supreme Court deciding what is and isn’t constitutional stems from the case of Marbury v. Madison, and the creation of judicial review.
Ethan Harris is a sophomore majoring in Political Science, Criminal Justice, and Philosophy.
Sources
Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, 1 Stat. 73. (1789). https://www.archives.gov/milestone-
documents/federal-judiciary-act
Marbury v. Madison. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved March 5, 2025, from https://www.oyez.org/cases