Federalist William Marbury was appointed as a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia, a government post created by Congress in the last days of John Adams's presidency. However, Adams’ last-minute appointments were never fully finalized. The disgruntled appointees invoked an act of Congress and sued for their jobs in the Supreme Court. The Jefferson administration claimed that the appointments made in the last days of the Adams administration were not valid and that Jefferson’s Secretary of State, James Madison, did not have to honor them.
Is Marbury entitled to his appointment? Is his lawsuit the correct way to get it? Is the Supreme Court the place for Marbury to get the relief he requests?
US Supreme Court Chief Justice
John Marshall
The new chief justice, John Marshall, understood that if the Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus (an order to force Madison to deliver the commission), the Jefferson administration would ignore it, and thus significantly weaken the authority of the courts. On the other hand, if the Court denied the writ, it might well appear that the justices had acted out of fear. Either case would be a denial of the basic principle of the supremacy of the law. Instead, Marshall found a common ground where the Court could chastise the Jeffersonians for their actions while enhancing the Supreme Court's power. His decision in this case has often been hailed as a judicial tour de force.
Marshall declared that Madison should have delivered the commission to Marbury; however, he ruled that the Court lacked the power to issue writs of mandamus. While a section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 granted the Court the power to issue writs of mandamus, the Court ruled that this exceeded the authority allotted the Court under Article III of the Constitution and was therefore null and void. So, while the case limited the court's power in one sense, it greatly enhanced it in another by ultimately establishing the court's power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. Just as important, it emphasized that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that the Supreme Court is the arbiter and final authority of the Constitution.
This case establishes the Supreme Court's power of judicial review.
