Case Digest

Case: Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. 137)

Date: February 1803
Ponente: Chief Justice John Marshall
Written by: VJ Bacungan

Facts

On December 1801, District of Columbia justices of the peace

William Marbury, Dennis Ramsay, Robert Townsend Hooe and
William Harper petitioned the Supreme Court to compel Secretary
of State James Madison to deliver their commissions (proof of their
official titles).
Proceedings started, where the Secretary of State was asked to show
cause as to why a writ of mandamus (a writ that orders someone to
do something) should not be issued to him.
Clerks Wagner and Daniel Brent testified that some but not all of
their commissions had been recorded and issued.
Attorney-General Lincoln, who was acting Secretary of State at
the time, originally objected to being questioned by the Court because
of the executive privilege attached to the office. However, the Court
found that the offices issuing of commissions is not covered by that
privilege and, thus, he was asked to answer the questions.
Lincoln testified that he signed a general list of commissions,
unsure if the petitioners names were in it.
After the proceedings, the Secretary of State was not able to show
cause as to why a mandamus need not be issued, so the Court
deliberated over issuing one.

Relevant Issues:
1. Do the petitioners have a right to the commissions?
2. Is the mandamus from the Supreme Court the best remedy for the
petitioners?
Holding: The petition was DENIED.
Ratio:

Page 1 of 2

On the first issue, YES. Although President Adamss signature was

sufficient for their appointments to become official and complete, the
non-delivery of the Secretary of State curtails the petitioners rights
(since the issuance of a commission is part of their legal title.)
On the second issue, NO. Although Congress gave the Supreme Court
original jurisdiction in issuing writs of mandamus against public
officials in the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Court found this provision to
be contrary to Article III of the U.S. Constitution, where the
Supreme Court merely has appellate jurisdiction in cases other
than those involving ambassadors, public ministers and consuls.

Notes:

In cases where a law and the Constitution are at odds, the

Constitution must reign supreme.
This is a landmark case that established the power of judicial
review (where the judiciary can examine and decide whether or not a
statute violates the Constitution).

Page 2 of 2