Archaeology

Arts

Economy

Education

Historical Overviews

Science, & Technology

Sports & Recreation

Transportation

Wildlife & Natural Resources

Search:

Marbury v. Madison laid the foundation for judicial review for constitutionality-the courts' role in deciding if a law was constitutional-in the United States, and, ultimately, throughout the world. Although the Supreme Court had previously reviewed laws for constitutionality, the Marbury decision in 1803 was the first time that the Supreme Court of the United States held an Act of Congress unconstitutional and explained the reasoning behind its power. Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion for the Court stated that the Constitution was intended to be the supreme law of the land and that the Court must interpret the Constitution when deciding cases and controversies brought before it. The idea that a court can overturn legislative acts contrary to the Constitution has expanded to include all types of law, and judicial review for constitutionality has become an important feature of government around the world.

Background
William Marbury was a financier who had been the agent for collecting debts owed Maryland before he moved from Annapolis to Georgetown. A few years after his move, Marbury and several other prominent Federalists were nominated by President John Adams to be justices of the peace for the District of Columbia. The Senate approved the nominations on the last day of Adams's presidency, and notified the secretary of state, who was responsible for imprinting the Great Seal of the United States and then delivering the commissions of office.

Adams's secretary of state was John Marshall, who had continued in that job after his appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court since the Court was not scheduled to sit until after Adams's term of office ended. Before Marshall could deliver the commissions, however, Thomas Jefferson took office as president. Jefferson ordered his secretary of state, James Madison, not to deliver the commissions to Adams's judges, and the president appointed his own nominees instead. Marbury and three others in a similar situation brought suit in the Supreme Court in 1801 for their commissions.

Marbury's lawsuit was part of a struggle between the Jeffersonians who controlled the executive and legislative branches and the Federalists who had filled the federal bench with Adams's appointees. The new Congress repealed the Federalist statute that had created federal circuit courts of appeals and changed the dates that the Supreme Court term would begin. As a result, the Court did not meet in 1802. When the Court finally met in 1803, the administration refused to argue in Marbury's case, taking the position that judges had no power over matters within the executive department.

The Decision
John Marshall wrote the opinion for the Court. He distinguished between acts that could be examined by the courts and those within the discretion of the executive that could only be examined politically. He said four things: first, the commissions were improperly withheld and second, that the Court could issue a writ of mandamus (an order to individuals, corporations, or lower courts to perform a stated action) to the secretary of state to compel their delivery by the proper procedure. Third, Marshall stated that the case was within the jurisdiction of the federal courts, and fourth, that the statute on the jurisdiction of federal courts provided for the case to be brought in the Supreme Court as an original matter. However, Marshall held that the statute was unconstitutional because Article III of the Constitution permitted the Supreme Court to review such suits only in its appellate jurisdiction and not to decide them as an original matter.

Marshall's opinion was highly controversial. Jefferson berated the Court for lecturing him on withholding the commissions and for saying that the Court could review his decision about documents in the executive office. Nevertheless, because Marshall's opinion concluded that the Court lacked jurisdiction to order any action, there was no order for Jefferson to resist.

Aftermath
Viewed in the narrowest possible manner, the Court held only that it could interpret the Constitution to decide its own jurisdiction. However, the Court's reasoning supported judicial review for the constitutionality of any government action. The Supreme Court extended that principle in 1816 to hold a state law that violated the Constitution invalid in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee. The next time the Court held a federal statute unconstitutional was the infamous Dred Scott decision in 1856, but subsequent exercises of judicial review have been more widely accepted as contributing to the stability of a federal system and protecting individual freedoms. Specific decisions of the Court are often controversial, but support for the process by which the Court makes such decisions remains strong.

Marbury sounded themes that have resounded in the courts for over two centuries: a careful examination of the procedural rules for bringing cases, a distinction between legal issues and political questions, the use of the judicial branch to restrain the executive, and the role of the Court in interpreting the Constitution.

The reasoning of the Court in Marbury controls today: Congress cannot add to the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Court will review challenges to the acts of the executive and may issue orders against the government. Finally, the Court will hold laws invalid that violate the Court's interpretation of the Constitution.

—David S. Bogen