Constitutional Law Case Brief - Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Note that this was one of the first cases I briefed. I don't think I did that great of a job. Also note that a lot of the formatting has been stripped in the pasting process. For example, the names of the parties are not properly underlined and the spacing is off. That's just what you get on a free site. Remember, no plagiarizing! This is just an example!

Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803)

FACTS: Weeks before leaving office, President John Adams nominated William Marbury and others to be justices of the peace in the District of Columbia. Their nominations were confirmed and commissions signed by the president, but the secretary of state, John Marshall, had not delivered them by the time Thomas Jefferson became president. Jefferson’s new secretary of state, James Madison, refused to deliver the commissions of Marbury and three others. The four men requested that the Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus ordering delivery under its original jurisdiction authorized in the Judiciary Act of 1789. Mandamus was not requested from lower federal courts.

ISSUE: There are two issues in this case. First, does Marbury have a right to the commission he demands? Second, if he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of this country afford him a remedy?

REASONING: Chief Justice Marshall: Mr. Marbury, then, since his commission was signed by the President, and sealed by the Secretary of State, was appointed; and as the law creating the office, gave the officer a right to hold for five years, independent of the executive, the appointment was not revocable, but vested in the officer legal rights, which are protected by the laws of his country. To withhold his commission, therefore, is an act deemed by the court not warranted by law, but violative of a vested legal right…
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. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection.
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.
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. 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.
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. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.
If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the legislature to apportion the judicial power between the supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded further than to have defined the judicial power, and the tribunals in which it should be vested. The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage, is entirely without meaning, if such is to be the construction. If congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction, where the constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and original jurisdiction where the constitution has declared it shall be appellate; the distribution of jurisdiction, made in the constitution, is form without substance.
The authority, therefore, given to the Supreme Court, by the act establishing the judicial courts of the United States, to issue writs of mandamus to public officers, appears not to be warranted by the constitution and it becomes necessary to inquire whether a jurisdiction so conferred can be exercised.
The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States...
This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here, or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments. The constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank. Thus, 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.

DECISION: Rule discharged.

RULE: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The authority given to the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus to public officers, appears not to be warranted by the Constitution; therefore, the court can not force Madison to deliver the commissions.

DISSENTING: None

NOTES AND COMMENTS: This case is one of the most well-known court cases because of Marshall’s decision which established judicial review. His statement that “it is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department, to say what the law is” has established the framework for judicial determination of the law.