1/7/2017 Marburyv.Madison(fulltext)::5U.S.137(1803)::JustiaU.S.

SupremeCourtCenter

Marburyv.Madison
5U.S.137(1803)

Syllabus|Case

U.S.SupremeCourt

Marburyv.Madison,5U.S.1Cranch137137
(1803)

Marburyv.Madison

5U.S.(1Cranch)137

Syllabus

TheclerksoftheDepartmentofStateoftheUnitedStatesmaybecalledupontogive
evidenceoftransactionsintheDepartmentwhicharenotofaconfidentialcharacter.

TheSecretaryofStatecannotbecalleduponasawitnesstostatetransactionsofa
confidentialnaturewhichmayhaveoccurredinhisDepartment.Buthemaybecalled
upontogivetestimonyofcircumstanceswhichwerenotofthatcharacter.

ClerksintheDepartmentofStateweredirectedtobesworn,subjecttoobjectionsto
questionsuponconfidentialmatters.

SomepointoftimemustbetakenwhenthepoweroftheExecutiveoveranofficer,not
removableathiswill,mustcease.Thatpointoftimemustbewhentheconstitutional
powerofappointmenthasbeenexercised.Andthepowerhasbeenexercisedwhenthe
lastactrequiredfromthepersonpossessingthepowerhasbeenperformed.Thislastact
isthesignatureofthecommission.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html 1/29
1/7/2017 Marburyv.Madison(fulltext)::5U.S.137(1803)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

Iftheactofliverybenecessarytogivevaliditytothecommissionofanofficer,ithas
beendeliveredwhenexecuted,andgiventotheSecretaryofStateforthepurposeof
beingsealed,recorded,andtransmittedtotheparty.

Incasesofcommissionstopublicofficers,thelaworderstheSecretaryofStatetorecord
them.When,therefore,theyaresignedandsealed,theorderfortheirbeingrecordedis
given,and,whetherinsertedinsertedintothebookornot,theyarerecorded.

WhentheheadsofthedepartmentsoftheGovernmentarethepoliticalorconfidential
officersoftheExecutive,merelytoexecutethewillofthePresident,orrathertoactin
casesinwhichtheExecutivepossessesaconstitutionalorlegaldiscretion,nothingcan
bemoreperfectlyclearthanthattheiractsareonlypoliticallyexaminable.Butwherea
specificdutyisassignedbylaw,andindividualrightsdependupontheperformanceof
thatduty,itseemsequallyclearthattheindividualwhoconsidershimselfinjuredhasa
righttoresorttothelawsofhiscountryforaremedy.

ThePresidentoftheUnitedStates,bysigningthecommission,appointedMr.Marbury
ajusticeofthepeacefortheCountyofWashington,intheDistrictofColumbia,andthe
sealoftheUnitedStates,affixedtheretobytheSecretaryofState,isconclusive
testimonyoftheverityofthesignature,andofthecompletionoftheappointmentand
theappointmentconferredonhimalegalrighttotheofficeforthespaceoffiveyears.
Havingthislegalrighttotheoffice,hehasaconsequentrighttothecommission,a
refusaltodeliverwhichisaplainviolationofthatrightforwhichthelawsofthecountry
affordhimaremedy.

Torenderamandamusaproperremedy,theofficertowhomitisdirectedmustbeone
towhom,onlegalprinciples,suchwritmustbedirected,andthepersonapplyingforit
mustbewithoutanyotherspecificremedy.

Whereacommissiontoapublicofficerhasbeenmadeout,signed,andsealed,andis
withheldfromthepersonentitledtoit,anactionofdetinueforthecommissionagainst
theSecretaryofStatewhorefusestodeliveritisnottheproperremedy,asthejudgment
indetinueisforthethingitself,oritsvalue.Thevalueofapublicoffice,nottobesold,is
incapableofbeingascertained.Itisaplaincaseforamandamus,eithertodeliverthe
commissionoracopyofitfromtherecord.

ToenabletheCourttoissueamandamustocompelthedeliveryofthecommissionofa
publicofficebytheSecretaryofState,itmustbeshownthatitisanexerciseofappellate

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html 2/29
1/7/2017 Marburyv.Madison(fulltext)::5U.S.137(1803)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

jurisdiction,orthatitbenecessarytoenablethemtoexerciseappellatejurisdiction.

Itistheessentialcriterionofappellatejurisdictionthatitrevisesandcorrectsthe
proceedingsinacausealreadyinstituted,anddoesnotcreatethecause.

TheauthoritygiventotheSupremeCourtbytheactestablishingthejudicialsystemof
theUnitedStatestoissuewritsofmandamustopublicofficersappearsnottobe
warrantedbytheConstitution.

ItisemphaticallythedutyoftheJudicialDepartmenttosaywhatthelawis.Thosewho
applytheruletoparticularcasesmust,ofnecessity,expoundandinterprettherule.If
twolawsconflictwitheachother,theCourtmustdecideontheoperationofeach.

IfcourtsaretoregardtheConstitution,andtheConstitutionissuperiortoanyordinary
actofthelegislature,theConstitution,andnotsuchordinaryact,mustgovernthecase
towhichtheybothapply.

AttheDecemberTerm,1801,WilliamMarbury,DennisRamsay,RobertTownsend
Hooe,andWilliamHarper,bytheircounsel,

Page5U.S.138

severallymovedthecourtforaruletoJamesMadison,SecretaryofStateoftheUnited
States,toshowcausewhyamandamusshouldnotissuecommandinghimtocauseto
bedeliveredtothemrespectivelytheirseveralcommissionsasjusticesofthepeacein
theDistrictofColumbia.Thismotionwassupportedbyaffidavitsofthefollowingfacts:
thatnoticeofthismotionhadbeengiventoMr.MadisonthatMr.Adams,thelate
PresidentoftheUnitedStates,nominatedtheapplicantstotheSenatefortheiradvice
andconsenttobeappointedjusticesofthepeaceoftheDistrictofColumbiathatthe
Senateadvisedandconsentedtotheappointmentsthatcommissionsindueformwere
signedbythesaidPresidentappointingthemjustices,&c.,andthatthesealofthe
UnitedStateswasindueformaffixedtothesaidcommissionsbytheSecretaryofState
thattheapplicantshaverequestedMr.Madisontodeliverthemtheirsaidcommissions,
whohasnotcompliedwiththatrequestandthattheirsaidcommissionsarewithheld
fromthemthattheapplicantshavemadeapplicationtoMr.MadisonasSecretaryof
StateoftheUnitedStatesathisoffice,forinformationwhetherthecommissionswere
signedandsealedasaforesaidthatexplicitandsatisfactoryinformationhasnotbeen
giveninanswertothatinquiry,eitherbytheSecretaryofStateoranyofficerinthe
DepartmentofStatethatapplicationhasbeenmadetothesecretaryoftheSenatefora

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html 3/29
1/7/2017 Marburyv.Madison(fulltext)::5U.S.137(1803)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

certificateofthenominationoftheapplicants,andoftheadviceandconsentofthe
Senate,whohasdeclinedgivingsuchacertificatewhereuponarulewasmadetoshow
causeonthefourthdayofthisterm.Thisrulehavingbeendulyserved,

Page5U.S.139

Mr.JacobWagnerandMr.DanielBrent,whohadbeensummonedtoattendthecourt
andwererequiredtogiveevidence,objectedtobesworn,allegingthattheywereclerks
intheDepartmentofState,andnotboundtodiscloseanyfactsrelatingtothebusiness
ortransactionsoftheoffice.

Thecourtorderedthewitnessestobesworn,andtheiranswerstakeninwriting,but
informedthemthat,whenthequestionswereasked,theymightstatetheirobjectionsto
answeringeachparticularquestion,iftheyhadany.

Mr.Lincoln,whohadbeentheactingSecretaryofState,whenthecircumstancesstated
intheaffidavitsoccurred,wascalledupontogivetestimony.Heobjectedtoanswering.
Thequestionswereputinwriting.

Thecourtsaidtherewasnothingconfidentialrequiredtobedisclosed.Iftherehad
been,hewasnotobligedtoanswerit,andifhethoughtanythingwascommunicatedto
himconfidentially,hewasnotboundtodisclose,norwasheobligedtostateanything
whichwouldcriminatehimself.

Thequestionsarguedbythecounselfortherelatorswere,1.WhethertheSupreme
Courtcanawardthewritofmandamusinanycase.2.WhetheritwilllietoaSecretary
ofState,inanycasewhatever.3.Whether,inthepresentcase,theCourtmayawarda
mandamustoJamesMadison,SecretaryofState.

Page5U.S.153

Mr.ChiefJusticeMARSHALLdeliveredtheopinionoftheCourt.

Atthelastterm,ontheaffidavitsthenreadandfiledwiththeclerk,arulewasgranted
inthiscaserequiringtheSecretaryofStatetoshowcausewhyamandamus

Page5U.S.154

shouldnotissuedirectinghimtodelivertoWilliamMarburyhiscommissionasajustice
ofthepeaceforthecountyofWashington,intheDistrictofColumbia.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html 4/29
1/7/2017 Marburyv.Madison(fulltext)::5U.S.137(1803)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

Nocausehasbeenshown,andthepresentmotionisforamandamus.Thepeculiar
delicacyofthiscase,thenoveltyofsomeofitscircumstances,andtherealdifficulty
attendingthepointswhichoccurinitrequireacompleteexpositionoftheprincipleson
whichtheopiniontobegivenbytheCourtisfounded.

Theseprincipleshavebeen,onthesideoftheapplicant,veryablyarguedatthebar.In
renderingtheopinionoftheCourt,therewillbesomedepartureinform,thoughnotin
substance,fromthepointsstatedinthatargument.

IntheorderinwhichtheCourthasviewedthissubject,thefollowingquestionshave
beenconsideredanddecided.

1.Hastheapplicantarighttothecommissionhedemands?

2.Ifhehasaright,andthatrighthasbeenviolated,dothelawsofhiscountryafford
himaremedy?

3.Iftheydoaffordhimaremedy,isitamandamusissuingfromthiscourt?

Thefirstobjectofinquiryis:

1.Hastheapplicantarighttothecommissionhedemands?

HisrightoriginatesinanactofCongresspassedinFebruary,1801,concerningthe
DistrictofColumbia.

Afterdividingthedistrictintotwocounties,theeleventhsectionofthislawenacts,

"thatthereshallbeappointedinandforeachofthesaidcountiessuchnumberof
discreetpersonstobejusticesofthepeaceasthePresidentoftheUnitedStatesshall,
fromtimetotime,thinkexpedient,tocontinueinofficeforfiveyears."

Page5U.S.155

Itappearsfromtheaffidavitsthat,incompliancewiththislaw,acommissionfor
WilliamMarburyasajusticeofpeacefortheCountyofWashingtonwassignedbyJohn
Adams,thenPresidentoftheUnitedStates,afterwhichthesealoftheUnitedStateswas
affixedtoit,butthecommissionhasneverreachedthepersonforwhomitwasmade
out.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html 5/29
1/7/2017 Marburyv.Madison(fulltext)::5U.S.137(1803)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

Inordertodeterminewhetherheisentitledtothiscommission,itbecomesnecessaryto
inquirewhetherhehasbeenappointedtotheoffice.Forifhehasbeenappointed,the
lawcontinueshiminofficeforfiveyears,andheisentitledtothepossessionofthose
evidencesofoffice,which,beingcompleted,becamehisproperty.

ThesecondsectionofthesecondarticleoftheConstitutiondeclares,

"ThePresidentshallnominate,and,byandwiththeadviceandconsentoftheSenate,
shallappointambassadors,otherpublicministersandconsuls,andallotherofficersof
theUnitedStates,whoseappointmentsarenototherwiseprovidedfor."

Thethirdsectiondeclares,that"HeshallcommissionalltheofficersoftheUnited
States."

AnactofCongressdirectstheSecretaryofStatetokeepthesealoftheUnitedStates,

"tomakeoutandrecord,andaffixthesaidsealtoallcivilcommissionstoofficersofthe
UnitedStatestobeappointedbythePresident,byandwiththeconsentoftheSenate,or
bythePresidentaloneprovidedthatthesaidsealshallnotbeaffixedtoany
commissionbeforethesameshallhavebeensignedbythePresidentoftheUnited
States."

ThesearetheclausesoftheConstitutionandlawsoftheUnitedStateswhichaffectthis
partofthecase.Theyseemtocontemplatethreedistinctoperations:

1.Thenomination.ThisisthesoleactofthePresident,andiscompletelyvoluntary.

2.Theappointment.ThisisalsotheactofthePresident,andisalsoavoluntaryact,
thoughitcanonlybeperformedbyandwiththeadviceandconsentoftheSenate.

Page5U.S.156

3.Thecommission.Tograntacommissiontoapersonappointedmightperhapsbe
deemedadutyenjoinedbytheConstitution."Heshall,"saysthatinstrument,
"commissionalltheofficersoftheUnitedStates."

Theactsofappointingtoofficeandcommissioningthepersonappointedcanscarcely
beconsideredasoneandthesame,sincethepowertoperformthemisgivenintwo
separateanddistinctsectionsoftheConstitution.Thedistinctionbetweenthe
appointmentandthecommissionwillberenderedmoreapparentbyadvertingtothat

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html 6/29
1/7/2017 Marburyv.Madison(fulltext)::5U.S.137(1803)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

provisioninthesecondsectionofthesecondarticleoftheConstitutionwhich
authorisesCongress

"tovestbylawtheappointmentofsuchinferiorofficersastheythinkproperinthe
Presidentalone,intheCourtsoflaw,orintheheadsofdepartments"

thuscontemplatingcaseswherethelawmaydirectthePresidenttocommissionan
officerappointedbytheCourtsorbytheheadsofdepartments.Insuchacase,toissuea
commissionwouldbeapparentlyadutydistinctfromtheappointment,theperformance
ofwhichperhapscouldnotlegallyberefused.

AlthoughthatclauseoftheConstitutionwhichrequiresthePresidenttocommissionall
theofficersoftheUnitedStatesmayneverhavebeenappliedtoofficersappointed
otherwisethanbyhimself,yetitwouldbedifficulttodenythelegislativepowertoapply
ittosuchcases.Ofconsequence,theconstitutionaldistinctionbetweentheappointment
toanofficeandthecommissionofanofficerwhohasbeenappointedremainsthesame
asifinpracticethePresidenthadcommissionedofficersappointedbyanauthority
otherthanhisown.

Itfollowstoofromtheexistenceofthisdistinctionthat,ifanappointmentwastobe
evidencedbyanypublicactotherthanthecommission,theperformanceofsuchpublic
actwouldcreatetheofficer,andifhewasnotremovableatthewillofthePresident,
wouldeithergivehimarighttohiscommissionorenablehimtoperformtheduties
withoutit.

Theseobservationsarepremisedsolelyforthepurposeofrenderingmoreintelligible
thosewhichapplymoredirectlytotheparticularcaseunderconsideration.

Page5U.S.157

ThisisanappointmentmadebythePresident,byandwiththeadviceandconsentof
theSenate,andisevidencedbynoactbutthecommissionitself.Insuchacase,
therefore,thecommissionandtheappointmentseeminseparable,itbeingalmost
impossibletoshowanappointmentotherwisethanbyprovingtheexistenceofa
commissionstill,thecommissionisnotnecessarilytheappointmentthough
conclusiveevidenceofit.

Butatwhatstagedoesitamounttothisconclusiveevidence?

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html 7/29
1/7/2017 Marburyv.Madison(fulltext)::5U.S.137(1803)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

Theanswertothisquestionseemsanobviousone.Theappointment,beingthesoleact
ofthePresident,mustbecompletelyevidencedwhenitisshownthathehasdone
everythingtobeperformedbyhim.

Shouldthecommission,insteadofbeingevidenceofanappointment,evenbe
consideredasconstitutingtheappointmentitself,stillitwouldbemadewhenthelast
acttobedonebythePresidentwasperformed,or,atfurthest,whenthecommission
wascomplete.

ThelastacttobedonebythePresidentisthesignatureofthecommission.Hehasthen
actedontheadviceandconsentoftheSenatetohisownnomination.Thetimefor
deliberationhasthenpassed.Hehasdecided.Hisjudgment,ontheadviceandconsent
oftheSenateconcurringwithhisnomination,hasbeenmade,andtheofficeris
appointed.Thisappointmentisevidencedbyanopen,unequivocalact,and,beingthe
lastactrequiredfromthepersonmakingit,necessarilyexcludestheideaofitsbeing,so
farasitrespectstheappointment,aninchoateandincompletetransaction.

SomepointoftimemustbetakenwhenthepoweroftheExecutiveoveranofficer,not
removableathiswill,mustcease.Thatpointoftimemustbewhentheconstitutional
powerofappointmenthasbeenexercised.Andthispowerhasbeenexercisedwhenthe
lastactrequiredfromthepersonpossessingthepowerhasbeenperformed.Thislastact
isthesignatureofthecommission.Thisideaseemstohaveprevailedwiththe
LegislaturewhentheactpassedconvertingtheDepartment

Page5U.S.158

ofForeignAffairsintotheDepartmentofState.Bythatact,itisenactedthatthe
SecretaryofStateshallkeepthesealoftheUnitedStates,

"andshallmakeoutandrecord,andshallaffixthesaidsealtoallcivilcommissionsto
officersoftheUnitedStates,tobeappointedbythePresident:...providedthatthesaid
sealshallnotbeaffixedtoanycommissionbeforethesameshallhavebeensignedby
thePresidentoftheUnitedStates,nortoanyotherinstrumentoractwithoutthespecial
warrantofthePresidenttherefor."

Thesignatureisawarrantforaffixingthegreatsealtothecommission,andthegreat
sealisonlytobeaffixedtoaninstrumentwhichiscomplete.Itattests,byanact
supposedtobeofpublicnotoriety,theverityofthePresidentialsignature.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html 8/29
1/7/2017 Marburyv.Madison(fulltext)::5U.S.137(1803)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

Itisnevertobeaffixedtillthecommissionissigned,becausethesignature,whichgives
forceandeffecttothecommission,isconclusiveevidencethattheappointmentismade.

Thecommissionbeingsigned,thesubsequentdutyoftheSecretaryofStateis
prescribedbylaw,andnottobeguidedbythewillofthePresident.Heistoaffixthe
sealoftheUnitedStatestothecommission,andistorecordit.

ThisisnotaproceedingwhichmaybevariedifthejudgmentoftheExecutiveshall
suggestonemoreeligible,butisaprecisecourseaccuratelymarkedoutbylaw,andisto
bestrictlypursued.ItisthedutyoftheSecretaryofStatetoconformtothelaw,andin
thisheisanofficeroftheUnitedStates,boundtoobeythelaws.Heacts,inthisrespect,
ashasbeenveryproperlystatedatthebar,undertheauthorityoflaw,andnotbythe
instructionsofthePresident.Itisaministerialactwhichthelawenjoinsonaparticular
officerforaparticularpurpose.

Ifitshouldbesupposedthatthesolemnityofaffixingthesealisnecessarynotonlyto
thevalidityofthecommission,buteventothecompletionofanappointment,still,
whenthesealisaffixed,theappointmentismade,and

Page5U.S.159

thecommissionisvalid.Noothersolemnityisrequiredbylawnootheractistobe
performedonthepartofgovernment.AllthattheExecutivecandotoinvesttheperson
withhisofficeisdone,andunlesstheappointmentbethenmade,theExecutivecannot
makeonewithoutthecooperationofothers.

Aftersearchinganxiouslyfortheprinciplesonwhichacontraryopinionmaybe
supported,nonehasbeenfoundwhichappearofsufficientforcetomaintainthe
oppositedoctrine.

SuchastheimaginationoftheCourtcouldsuggesthavebeenverydeliberately
examined,andafterallowingthemalltheweightwhichitappearspossibletogivethem,
theydonotshaketheopinionwhichhasbeenformed.

Inconsideringthisquestion,ithasbeenconjecturedthatthecommissionmayhave
beenassimilatedtoadeedtothevalidityofwhichdeliveryisessential.

Thisideaisfoundedonthesuppositionthatthecommissionisnotmerelyevidenceof
anappointment,butisitselftheactualappointmentasuppositionbynomeans

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html 9/29
1/7/2017 Marburyv.Madison(fulltext)::5U.S.137(1803)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

unquestionable.But,forthepurposeofexaminingthisobjectionfairly,letitbe
concededthattheprincipleclaimedforitssupportisestablished.

Theappointmentbeing,undertheConstitution,tobemadebythePresidentpersonally,
thedeliveryofthedeedofappointment,ifnecessarytoitscompletion,mustbemadeby
thePresidentalso.Itisnotnecessarythattheliveryshouldbemadepersonallytothe
granteeoftheofficeitneverissomade.Thelawwouldseemtocontemplatethatit
shouldbemadetotheSecretaryofState,sinceitdirectsthesecretarytoaffixthesealto
thecommissionafteritshallhavebeensignedbythePresident.Ifthentheactoflivery
benecessarytogivevaliditytothecommission,ithasbeendeliveredwhenexecutedand
giventotheSecretaryforthepurposeofbeingsealed,recorded,andtransmittedtothe
party.

Butinallcasesofletterspatent,certainsolemnitiesarerequiredbylaw,which
solemnitiesaretheevidences

Page5U.S.160

ofthevalidityoftheinstrument.Aformaldeliverytothepersonisnotamongthem.In
casesofcommissions,thesignmanualofthePresidentandthesealoftheUnitedStates
arethosesolemnities.Thisobjectionthereforedoesnottouchthecase.

Ithasalsooccurredaspossible,andbarelypossible,thatthetransmissionofthe
commissionandtheacceptancethereofmightbedeemednecessarytocompletethe
rightoftheplaintiff.

Thetransmissionofthecommissionisapracticedirectedbyconvenience,butnotby
law.Itcannotthereforebenecessarytoconstitutetheappointment,whichmustprecede
itandwhichisthemereactofthePresident.IftheExecutiverequiredthateveryperson
appointedtoanofficeshouldhimselftakemeanstoprocurehiscommission,the
appointmentwouldnotbethelessvalidonthataccount.Theappointmentisthesole
actofthePresidentthetransmissionofthecommissionisthesoleactoftheofficerto
whomthatdutyisassigned,andmaybeacceleratedorretardedbycircumstanceswhich
canhavenoinfluenceontheappointment.Acommissionistransmittedtoaperson
alreadyappointed,nottoapersontobeappointedornot,astheletterenclosingthe
commissionshouldhappentogetintothepostofficeandreachhiminsafety,orto
miscarry.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html 10/29
1/7/2017 Marburyv.Madison(fulltext)::5U.S.137(1803)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

Itmayhavesometendencytoelucidatethispointtoinquirewhetherthepossessionof
theoriginalcommissionbeindispensablynecessarytoauthorizeapersonappointedto
anyofficetoperformthedutiesofthatoffice.Ifitwasnecessary,thenalossofthe
commissionwouldlosetheoffice.Notonlynegligence,butaccidentorfraud,fireor
theftmightdepriveanindividualofhisoffice.Insuchacase,Ipresumeitcouldnotbe
doubtedbutthatacopyfromtherecordoftheOfficeoftheSecretaryofStatewouldbe,
toeveryintentandpurpose,equaltotheoriginal.TheactofCongresshasexpressly
madeitso.Togivethatcopyvalidity,itwouldnotbenecessarytoprovethattheoriginal
hadbeentransmittedandafterwardslost.Thecopywouldbecompleteevidencethat
theoriginalhadexisted,andthattheappointmenthadbeenmade,butnotthatthe
originalhadbeentransmitted.Ifindeeditshouldappearthat

Page5U.S.161

theoriginalhadbeenmislaidintheOfficeofState,thatcircumstancewouldnotaffect
theoperationofthecopy.Whenalltherequisiteshavebeenperformedwhichauthorize
arecordingofficertorecordanyinstrumentwhatever,andtheorderforthatpurpose
hasbeengiven,theinstrumentisinlawconsideredasrecorded,althoughthemanual
labourofinsertingitinabookkeptforthatpurposemaynothavebeenperformed.

Inthecaseofcommissions,thelaworderstheSecretaryofStatetorecordthem.When,
therefore,theyaresignedandsealed,theorderfortheirbeingrecordedisgiven,and,
whetherinsertedinthebookornot,theyareinlawrecorded.

Acopyofthisrecordisdeclaredequaltotheoriginal,andthefeestobepaidbyaperson
requiringacopyareascertainedbylaw.Canakeeperofapublicrecorderasetherefrom
acommissionwhichhasbeenrecorded?Orcanherefuseacopythereoftoaperson
demandingitonthetermsprescribedbylaw?

Suchacopywould,equallywiththeoriginal,authorizethejusticeofpeacetoproceedin
theperformanceofhisduty,becauseitwould,equallywiththeoriginal,attesthis
appointment.

Ifthetransmissionofacommissionbenotconsideredasnecessarytogivevaliditytoan
appointment,stilllessisitsacceptance.TheappointmentisthesoleactofthePresident
theacceptanceisthesoleactoftheofficer,andis,inplaincommonsense,posteriorto
theappointment.Ashemayresign,somayherefusetoacceptbutneithertheonenor
theotheriscapableofrenderingtheappointmentanonentity.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html 11/29
1/7/2017 Marburyv.Madison(fulltext)::5U.S.137(1803)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

Thatthisistheunderstandingofthegovernmentisapparentfromthewholetenorofits
conduct.

Acommissionbearsdate,andthesalaryoftheofficercommencesfromhis
appointment,notfromthetransmissionoracceptanceofhiscommission.Whena
personappointedtoanyofficerefusestoacceptthatoffice,thesuccessorisnominated
intheplaceofthepersonwho

Page5U.S.162

hasdeclinedtoaccept,andnotintheplaceofthepersonwhohadbeenpreviouslyin
officeandhadcreatedtheoriginalvacancy.

ItisthereforedecidedlytheopinionoftheCourtthat,whenacommissionhasbeen
signedbythePresident,theappointmentismade,andthatthecommissioniscomplete
whenthesealoftheUnitedStateshasbeenaffixedtoitbytheSecretaryofState.

WhereanofficerisremovableatthewilloftheExecutive,thecircumstancewhich
completeshisappointmentisofnoconcern,becausetheactisatanytimerevocable,
andthecommissionmaybearrestedifstillintheoffice.Butwhentheofficerisnot
removableatthewilloftheExecutive,theappointmentisnotrevocable,andcannotbe
annulled.Ithasconferredlegalrightswhichcannotberesumed.

ThediscretionoftheExecutiveistobeexerciseduntiltheappointmenthasbeenmade.
Buthavingoncemadetheappointment,hispowerovertheofficeisterminatedinall
cases,wherebylawtheofficerisnotremovablebyhim.Therighttotheofficeisthenin
thepersonappointed,andhehastheabsolute,unconditionalpowerofacceptingor
rejectingit.

Mr.Marbury,then,sincehiscommissionwassignedbythePresidentandsealedbythe
SecretaryofState,wasappointed,andasthelawcreatingtheofficegavetheofficera
righttoholdforfiveyearsindependentoftheExecutive,theappointmentwasnot
revocable,butvestedintheofficerlegalrightswhichareprotectedbythelawsofhis
country.

Towithholdthecommission,therefore,isanactdeemedbytheCourtnotwarrantedby
law,butviolativeofavestedlegalright.

Thisbringsustothesecondinquiry,whichis:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html 12/29
1/7/2017 Marburyv.Madison(fulltext)::5U.S.137(1803)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

2.Ifhehasaright,andthatrighthasbeenviolated,dothelawsofhiscountryafford
himaremedy?

Page5U.S.163

Theveryessenceofcivillibertycertainlyconsistsintherightofeveryindividualtoclaim
theprotectionofthelawswheneverhereceivesaninjury.Oneofthefirstdutiesof
governmentistoaffordthatprotection.InGreatBritain,theKinghimselfissuedinthe
respectfulformofapetition,andheneverfailstocomplywiththejudgmentofhis
court.

InthethirdvolumeofhisCommentaries,page23,Blackstonestatestwocasesinwhich
aremedyisaffordedbymereoperationoflaw.

"Inallothercases,"hesays,

"itisageneralandindisputablerulethatwherethereisalegalright,thereisalsoalegal
remedybysuitoractionatlawwheneverthatrightisinvaded."

Andafterwards,page109ofthesamevolume,hesays,

"IamnexttoconsidersuchinjuriesasarecognizablebytheCourtsofcommonlaw.And
hereinIshallforthepresentonlyremarkthatallpossibleinjurieswhatsoeverthatdid
notfallwithintheexclusivecognizanceofeithertheecclesiastical,military,ormaritime
tribunalsare,forthatveryreason,withinthecognizanceofthecommonlawcourtsof
justice,foritisasettledandinvariableprincipleinthelawsofEnglandthateveryright,
whenwithheld,musthavearemedy,andeveryinjuryitsproperredress."

TheGovernmentoftheUnitedStateshasbeenemphaticallytermedagovernmentof
laws,andnotofmen.Itwillcertainlyceasetodeservethishighappellationifthelaws
furnishnoremedyfortheviolationofavestedlegalright.

Ifthisobloquyistobecastonthejurisprudenceofourcountry,itmustarisefromthe
peculiarcharacterofthecase.

Itbehoovesus,then,toinquirewhethertherebeinitscompositionanyingredient
whichshallexemptfromlegalinvestigationorexcludetheinjuredpartyfromlegal
redress.Inpursuingthisinquiry,thefirstquestionwhichpresentsitselfiswhetherthis
canbearranged

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html 13/29
1/7/2017 Marburyv.Madison(fulltext)::5U.S.137(1803)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

Page5U.S.164

withthatclassofcaseswhichcomeunderthedescriptionofdamnumabsqueinjuria
alosswithoutaninjury.

Thisdescriptionofcasesneverhasbeenconsidered,and,itisbelieved,nevercanbe
considered,ascomprehendingofficesoftrust,ofhonourorofprofit.Theofficeof
justiceofpeaceintheDistrictofColumbiaissuchanofficeitisthereforeworthyofthe
attentionandguardianshipofthelaws.Ithasreceivedthatattentionandguardianship.
IthasbeencreatedbyspecialactofCongress,andhasbeensecured,sofarasthelaws
cangivesecuritytothepersonappointedtofillit,forfiveyears.Itisnotthenonaccount
oftheworthlessnessofthethingpursuedthattheinjuredpartycanbeallegedtobe
withoutremedy.

Isitinthenatureofthetransaction?Istheactofdeliveringorwithholdinga
commissiontobeconsideredasamerepoliticalactbelongingtotheExecutive
departmentalone,fortheperformanceofwhichentireconfidenceisplacedbyour
ConstitutionintheSupremeExecutive,andforanymisconductrespectingwhichthe
injuredindividualhasnoremedy?

Thattheremaybesuchcasesisnottobequestioned.butthateveryactofdutytobe
performedinanyofthegreatdepartmentsofgovernmentconstitutessuchacaseisnot
tobeadmitted.

Bytheactconcerninginvalids,passedinJune,1794,theSecretaryatWarisorderedto
placeonthepensionlistallpersonswhosenamesarecontainedinareportpreviously
madebyhimtoCongress.Ifheshouldrefusetodoso,wouldthewoundedveteranbe
withoutremedy?Isittobecontendedthatwherethelaw,inpreciseterms,directsthe
performanceofanactinwhichanindividualisinterested,thelawisincapableof
securingobediencetoitsmandate?Isitonaccountofthecharacteroftheperson
againstwhomthecomplaintismade?Isittobecontendedthattheheadsof
departmentsarenotamenabletothelawsoftheircountry?

Whateverthepracticeonparticularoccasionsmaybe,thetheoryofthisprinciplewill
certainlyneverbemaintained.

Page5U.S.165

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html 14/29
1/7/2017 Marburyv.Madison(fulltext)::5U.S.137(1803)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

NoactoftheLegislatureconferssoextraordinaryaprivilege,norcanitderive
countenancefromthedoctrinesofthecommonlaw.Afterstatingthatpersonalinjury
fromtheKingtoasubjectispresumedtobeimpossible,Blackstone,Vol.III.p.255,
says,

"butinjuriestotherightsofpropertycanscarcelybecommittedbytheCrownwithout
theinterventionofitsofficers,forwhom,thelaw,inmattersofright,entertainsno
respectordelicacy,butfurnishesvariousmethodsofdetectingtheerrorsand
misconductofthoseagentsbywhomtheKinghasbeendeceivedandinducedtodoa
temporaryinjustice."

Bytheactpassedin1796,authorizingthesaleofthelandsabovethemouthofKentucky
river,thepurchaser,onpayinghispurchasemoney,becomescompletelyentitledtothe
propertypurchased,and,onproducingtotheSecretaryofStatethereceiptofthe
treasureruponacertificaterequiredbythelaw,thePresidentoftheUnitedStatesis
authorizedtogranthimapatent.Itisfurtherenactedthatallpatentsshallbe
countersignedbytheSecretaryofState,andrecordedinhisoffice.IftheSecretaryof
Stateshouldchoosetowithholdthispatent,or,thepatentbeinglost,shouldrefusea
copyofit,canitbeimaginedthatthelawfurnishestotheinjuredpersonnoremedy?

Itisnotbelievedthatanypersonwhateverwouldattempttomaintainsucha
proposition.

Itfollows,then,thatthequestionwhetherthelegalityofanactoftheheadofa
departmentbeexaminableinacourtofjusticeornotmustalwaysdependonthenature
ofthatact.

Ifsomeactsbeexaminableandothersnot,theremustbesomeruleoflawtoguidethe
Courtintheexerciseofitsjurisdiction.

Insomeinstances,theremaybedifficultyinapplyingtheruletoparticularcasesbut
therecannot,itisbelieved,bemuchdifficultyinlayingdowntherule.

BytheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates,thePresidentisinvestedwithcertain
importantpoliticalpowers,inthe

Page5U.S.166

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html 15/29
1/7/2017 Marburyv.Madison(fulltext)::5U.S.137(1803)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

exerciseofwhichheistousehisowndiscretion,andisaccountableonlytohiscountry
inhispoliticalcharacterandtohisownconscience.Toaidhimintheperformanceof
theseduties,heisauthorizedtoappointcertainofficers,whoactbyhisauthorityandin
conformitywithhisorders.

Insuchcases,theiractsarehisactsandwhateveropinionmaybeentertainedofthe
mannerinwhichexecutivediscretionmaybeused,stillthereexists,andcanexist,no
powertocontrolthatdiscretion.Thesubjectsarepolitical.Theyrespectthenation,not
individualrights,and,beingentrustedtotheExecutive,thedecisionoftheExecutiveis
conclusive.Theapplicationofthisremarkwillbeperceivedbyadvertingtotheactof
CongressforestablishingtheDepartmentofForeignAffairs.Thisofficer,ashisduties
wereprescribedbythatact,istoconformpreciselytothewillofthePresident.Heisthe
mereorganbywhomthatwilliscommunicated.Theactsofsuchanofficer,asan
officer,canneverbeexaminablebytheCourts.

ButwhentheLegislatureproceedstoimposeonthatofficerotherdutieswhenheis
directedperemptorilytoperformcertainactswhentherightsofindividualsare
dependentontheperformanceofthoseactsheissofartheofficerofthelaw,is
amenabletothelawsforhisconduct,andcannotathisdiscretion,sportawaythevested
rightsofothers.

Theconclusionfromthisreasoningisthat,wheretheheadsofdepartmentsarethe
politicalorconfidentialagentsoftheExecutive,merelytoexecutethewillofthe
President,orrathertoactincasesinwhichtheExecutivepossessesaconstitutionalor
legaldiscretion,nothingcanbemoreperfectlyclearthanthattheiractsareonly
politicallyexaminable.Butwhereaspecificdutyisassignedbylaw,andindividual
rightsdependupontheperformanceofthatduty,itseemsequallyclearthatthe
individualwhoconsidershimselfinjuredhasarighttoresorttothelawsofhiscountry
foraremedy.

Ifthisbetherule,letusinquirehowitappliestothecaseundertheconsiderationofthe
Court.

Page5U.S.167

ThepowerofnominatingtotheSenate,andthepowerofappointingtheperson
nominated,arepoliticalpowers,tobeexercisedbythePresidentaccordingtohisown
discretion.Whenhehasmadeanappointment,hehasexercisedhiswholepower,and

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html 16/29
1/7/2017 Marburyv.Madison(fulltext)::5U.S.137(1803)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

hisdiscretionhasbeencompletelyappliedtothecase.If,bylaw,theofficerbe
removableatthewillofthePresident,thenanewappointmentmaybeimmediately
made,andtherightsoftheofficerareterminated.Butasafactwhichhasexistedcannot
bemadenevertohaveexisted,theappointmentcannotbeannihilated,and
consequently,iftheofficerisbylawnotremovableatthewillofthePresident,therights
hehasacquiredareprotectedbythelaw,andarenotresumablebythePresident.They
cannotbeextinguishedbyExecutiveauthority,andhehastheprivilegeofasserting
theminlikemannerasiftheyhadbeenderivedfromanyothersource.

Thequestionwhetherarighthasvestedornotis,initsnature,judicial,andmustbe
triedbythejudicialauthority.If,forexample,Mr.Marburyhadtakentheoathsofa
magistrateandproceededtoactasone,inconsequenceofwhichasuithadbeen
institutedagainsthiminwhichhisdefencehaddependedonhisbeingamagistratethe
validityofhisappointmentmusthavebeendeterminedbyjudicialauthority.

So,ifheconceivesthat,byvirtueofhisappointment,hehasalegalrighteithertothe
commissionwhichhasbeenmadeoutforhimortoacopyofthatcommission,itis
equallyaquestionexaminableinacourt,andthedecisionoftheCourtuponitmust
dependontheopinionentertainedofhisappointment.

Thatquestionhasbeendiscussed,andtheopinionisthatthelatestpointoftimewhich
canbetakenasthatatwhichtheappointmentwascompleteandevidencedwaswhen,
afterthesignatureofthePresident,thesealoftheUnitedStateswasaffixedtothe
commission.

ItisthentheopinionoftheCourt:

1.That,bysigningthecommissionofMr.Marbury,thePresidentoftheUnitedStates
appointedhimajustice

Page5U.S.168

ofpeacefortheCountyofWashingtonintheDistrictofColumbia,andthatthesealof
theUnitedStates,affixedtheretobytheSecretaryofState,isconclusivetestimonyof
theverityofthesignature,andofthecompletionoftheappointment,andthatthe
appointmentconferredonhimalegalrighttotheofficeforthespaceoffiveyears.

2.That,havingthislegaltitletotheoffice,hehasaconsequentrighttothecommission,
arefusaltodeliverwhichisaplainviolationofthatright,forwhichthelawsofhis

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html 17/29
1/7/2017 Marburyv.Madison(fulltext)::5U.S.137(1803)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

countryaffordhimaremedy.

Itremainstobeinquiredwhether,

3.Heisentitledtotheremedyforwhichheapplies.Thisdependson:

1.Thenatureofthewritappliedfor,and

2.Thepowerofthiscourt.

1.Thenatureofthewrit.

Blackstone,inthethirdvolumeofhisCommentaries,page110,definesamandamusto
be

"acommandissuingintheKing'snamefromtheCourtofKing'sBench,anddirectedto
anyperson,corporation,orinferiorcourtofjudicaturewithintheKing'sdominions
requiringthemtodosomeparticularthingthereinspecifiedwhichappertainstotheir
officeandduty,andwhichtheCourtofKing'sBenchhaspreviouslydetermined,orat
leastsupposes,tobeconsonanttorightandjustice."

LordMansfield,in3Burrows,1266,inthecaseofTheKingv.Bakeretal.,stateswith
muchprecisionandexplicitnessthecasesinwhichthiswritmaybeused.

"Whenever,"saysthatveryablejudge,

"thereisarighttoexecuteanoffice,performaservice,orexerciseafranchise(more
especiallyifitbeinamatterofpublicconcernorattendedwithprofit),andapersonis
keptoutofpossession,ordispossessedofsuchright,and

Page5U.S.169

hasnootherspecificlegalremedy,thiscourtoughttoassistbymandamus,upon
reasonsofjustice,asthewritexpresses,anduponreasonsofpublicpolicy,topreserve
peace,orderandgoodgovernment."

Inthesamecase,hesays,

"thiswritoughttobeuseduponalloccasionswherethelawhasestablishednospecific
remedy,andwhereinjusticeandgoodgovernmentthereoughttobeone."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html 18/29
1/7/2017 Marburyv.Madison(fulltext)::5U.S.137(1803)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

Inadditiontotheauthoritiesnowparticularlycited,manyotherswerereliedonatthe
barwhichshowhowfarthepracticehasconformedtothegeneraldoctrinesthathave
beenjustquoted.

Thiswrit,ifawarded,wouldbedirectedtoanofficerofgovernment,anditsmandateto
himwouldbe,tousethewordsofBlackstone,

"todoaparticularthingthereinspecified,whichappertainstohisofficeanddutyand
whichtheCourthaspreviouslydeterminedoratleastsupposestobeconsonanttoright
andjustice."

Or,inthewordsofLordMansfield,theapplicant,inthiscase,hasarighttoexecutean
officeofpublicconcern,andiskeptoutofpossessionofthatright.

Thesecircumstancescertainlyconcurinthiscase.

Still,torenderthemandamusaproperremedy,theofficertowhomitistobedirected
mustbeonetowhom,onlegalprinciples,suchwritmaybedirected,andtheperson
applyingforitmustbewithoutanyotherspecificandlegalremedy.

1.Withrespecttotheofficertowhomitwouldbedirected.Theintimatepolitical
relation,subsistingbetweenthePresidentoftheUnitedStatesandtheheadsof
departments,necessarilyrendersanylegalinvestigationoftheactsofoneofthosehigh
officerspeculiarlyirksome,aswellasdelicate,andexcitessomehesitationwithrespect
totheproprietyofenteringintosuchinvestigation.Impressionsareoftenreceived
withoutmuchreflectionorexamination,anditisnotwonderfulthat,insuchacaseas
this,theassertionbyanindividualofhislegalclaimsinacourtofjustice,towhich
claimsitisthedutyofthatcourttoattend,should,atfirstview,beconsidered

Page5U.S.170

bysomeasanattempttointrudeintothecabinetandtointermeddlewiththe
prerogativesoftheExecutive.

ItisscarcelynecessaryfortheCourttodisclaimallpretensionstosuchajurisdiction.
Anextravagancesoabsurdandexcessivecouldnothavebeenentertainedforamoment.
TheprovinceoftheCourtissolelytodecideontherightsofindividuals,nottoinquire
howtheExecutiveorExecutiveofficersperformdutiesinwhichtheyhaveadiscretion.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html 19/29
1/7/2017 Marburyv.Madison(fulltext)::5U.S.137(1803)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

Questions,intheirnaturepoliticalorwhichare,bytheConstitutionandlaws,
submittedtotheExecutive,canneverbemadeinthiscourt.

But,ifthisbenotsuchaquestionifsofarfrombeinganintrusionintothesecretsof
thecabinet,itrespectsapaperwhich,accordingtolaw,isuponrecord,andtoacopyof
whichthelawgivesaright,onthepaymentoftencentsifitbenointermeddlingwitha
subjectoverwhichtheExecutivecanbeconsideredashavingexercisedanycontrol
whatisthereintheexaltedstationoftheofficerwhichshallbaracitizenfromasserting
inacourtofjusticehislegalrights,orshallforbidacourttolistentotheclaimorto
issueamandamusdirectingtheperformanceofadutynotdependingonExecutive
discretion,butonparticularactsofCongressandthegeneralprinciplesoflaw?

Ifoneoftheheadsofdepartmentscommitsanyillegalactundercolourofhisofficeby
whichanindividualsustainsaninjury,itcannotbepretendedthathisofficealone
exemptshimfrombeingsuedintheordinarymodeofproceeding,andbeingcompelled
toobeythejudgmentofthelaw.Howthencanhisofficeexempthimfromthis
particularmodeofdecidingonthelegalityofhisconductifthecasebesuchacaseas
would,wereanyotherindividualthepartycomplainedof,authorizetheprocess?

Itisnotbytheofficeofthepersontowhomthewritisdirected,butthenatureofthe
thingtobedone,thattheproprietyorimproprietyofissuingamandamusistobe
determined.WheretheheadofadepartmentactsinacaseinwhichExecutive
discretionistobeexercised,inwhichheisthemereorganofExecutivewill,itis

Page5U.S.171

againrepeated,thatanyapplicationtoacourttocontrol,inanyrespect,hisconduct,
wouldberejectedwithouthesitation.

Butwhereheisdirectedbylawtodoacertainactaffectingtheabsoluterightsof
individuals,intheperformanceofwhichheisnotplacedundertheparticulardirection
ofthePresident,andtheperformanceofwhichthePresidentcannotlawfullyforbid,and
thereforeisneverpresumedtohaveforbiddenasforexample,torecorda
commission,orapatentforland,whichhasreceivedallthelegalsolemnitiesortogive
acopyofsuchrecordinsuchcases,itisnotperceivedonwhatgroundtheCourtsof
thecountryarefurtherexcusedfromthedutyofgivingjudgmentthatrighttobedone
toaninjuredindividualthanifthesameservicesweretobeperformedbyapersonnot
theheadofadepartment.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html 20/29
1/7/2017 Marburyv.Madison(fulltext)::5U.S.137(1803)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

Thisopinionseemsnotnowforthefirsttimetobetakenupinthiscountry.

Itmustbewellrecollectedthat,in1792,anactpassed,directingthesecretaryatwarto
placeonthepensionlistsuchdisabledofficersandsoldiersasshouldbereportedtohim
bytheCircuitCourts,whichact,sofarasthedutywasimposedontheCourts,was
deemedunconstitutionalbutsomeofthejudges,thinkingthatthelawmightbe
executedbytheminthecharacterofcommissioners,proceededtoactandtoreportin
thatcharacter.

Thislawbeingdeemedunconstitutionalatthecircuits,wasrepealed,andadifferent
systemwasestablishedbutthequestionwhetherthosepersonswhohadbeenreported
bythejudges,ascommissioners,wereentitled,inconsequenceofthatreport,tobe
placedonthepensionlistwasalegalquestion,properlydeterminableintheCourts,
althoughtheactofplacingsuchpersonsonthelistwastobeperformedbytheheadofa
department.

Thatthisquestionmightbeproperlysettled,CongresspassedanactinFebruary,1793,
makingitthedutyoftheSecretaryofWar,inconjunctionwiththeAttorneyGeneral,to
takesuchmeasuresasmightbenecessarytoobtainanadjudicationoftheSupreme
CourtoftheUnited

Page5U.S.172

Statesonthevalidityofanysuchrights,claimedundertheactaforesaid.

Afterthepassageofthisact,amandamuswasmovedfor,tobedirectedtotheSecretary
ofWar,commandinghimtoplaceonthepensionlistapersonstatinghimselftobeon
thereportofthejudges.

Thereis,therefore,muchreasontobelievethatthismodeoftryingthelegalrightofthe
complainantwasdeemedbytheheadofadepartment,andbythehighestlawofficerof
theUnitedStates,themostproperwhichcouldbeselectedforthepurpose.

WhenthesubjectwasbroughtbeforetheCourt,thedecisionwasnotthatamandamus
wouldnotlietotheheadofadepartmentdirectinghimtoperformanactenjoinedby
law,intheperformanceofwhichanindividualhadavestedinterest,butthata
mandamusoughtnottoissueinthatcasethedecisionnecessarilytobemadeifthe
reportofthecommissionersdidnotconferontheapplicantalegalright.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html 21/29
1/7/2017 Marburyv.Madison(fulltext)::5U.S.137(1803)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

Thejudgmentinthatcaseisunderstoodtohavedecidedthemeritsofallclaimsofthat
description,andthepersons,onthereportofthecommissioners,founditnecessaryto
pursuethemodeprescribedbythelawsubsequenttothatwhichhadbeendeemed
unconstitutionalinordertoplacethemselvesonthepensionlist.

Thedoctrine,therefore,nowadvancedisbynomeansanovelone.

Itistruethatthemandamusnowmovedforisnotfortheperformanceofanact
expresslyenjoinedbystatute.

Itistodeliveracommission,onwhichsubjectstheactsofCongressaresilent.This
differenceisnotconsideredasaffectingthecase.Ithasalreadybeenstatedthatthe
applicanthas,tothatcommission,avestedlegalrightofwhichtheExecutivecannot
deprivehim.Hehasbeenappointedtoanofficefromwhichheisnotremovableatthe
willoftheExecutive,and,beingso

Page5U.S.173

appointed,hehasarighttothecommissionwhichtheSecretaryhasreceivedfromthe
Presidentforhisuse.TheactofCongressdoesnot,indeed,ordertheSecretaryofState
tosendittohim,butitisplacedinhishandsforthepersonentitledtoit,andcannotbe
morelawfullywithheldbyhimthanbyanotherperson.

Itwasatfirstdoubtedwhethertheactionofdetinuewasnotaspecificlegalremedyfor
thecommissionwhichhasbeenwithheldfromMr.Marbury,inwhichcaseamandamus
wouldbeimproper.Butthisdoubthasyieldedtotheconsiderationthatthejudgmentin
detinueisforthethingitself,oritsvalue.Thevalueofapublicofficenottobesoldis
incapableofbeingascertained,andtheapplicanthasarighttotheofficeitself,orto
nothing.Hewillobtaintheofficebyobtainingthecommissionoracopyofitfromthe
record.

This,then,isaplaincaseofamandamus,eithertodeliverthecommissionoracopyof
itfromtherecord,anditonlyremainstobeinquired:

WhetheritcanissuefromthisCourt.

TheacttoestablishthejudicialcourtsoftheUnitedStatesauthorizestheSupreme
Court

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html 22/29
1/7/2017 Marburyv.Madison(fulltext)::5U.S.137(1803)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

"toissuewritsofmandamus,incaseswarrantedbytheprinciplesandusagesoflaw,to
anycourtsappointed,orpersonsholdingoffice,undertheauthorityoftheUnited
States."

TheSecretaryofState,beingaperson,holdinganofficeundertheauthorityofthe
UnitedStates,ispreciselywithintheletterofthedescription,andifthisCourtisnot
authorizedtoissueawritofmandamustosuchanofficer,itmustbebecausethelawis
unconstitutional,andthereforeabsolutelyincapableofconferringtheauthorityand
assigningthedutieswhichitswordspurporttoconferandassign.

TheConstitutionveststhewholejudicialpoweroftheUnitedStatesinoneSupreme
Court,andsuchinferiorcourtsasCongressshall,fromtimetotime,ordainand
establish.Thispowerisexpresslyextendedtoallcasesarisingunderthelawsofthe
UnitedStatesandconsequently,insomeform,maybeexercisedoverthepresent

Page5U.S.174

case,becausetherightclaimedisgivenbyalawoftheUnitedStates.

Inthedistributionofthispower.itisdeclaredthat

"TheSupremeCourtshallhaveoriginaljurisdictioninallcasesaffectingambassadors,
otherpublicministersandconsuls,andthoseinwhichastateshallbeaparty.Inall
othercases,theSupremeCourtshallhaveappellatejurisdiction."

Ithasbeeninsistedatthebar,that,astheoriginalgrantofjurisdictiontotheSupreme
andinferiorcourtsisgeneral,andtheclauseassigningoriginaljurisdictiontothe
SupremeCourtcontainsnonegativeorrestrictivewords,thepowerremainstothe
LegislaturetoassignoriginaljurisdictiontothatCourtinothercasesthanthose
specifiedinthearticlewhichhasbeenrecited,providedthosecasesbelongtothe
judicialpoweroftheUnitedStates.

IfithadbeenintendedtoleaveitinthediscretionoftheLegislaturetoapportionthe
judicialpowerbetweentheSupremeandinferiorcourtsaccordingtothewillofthat
body,itwouldcertainlyhavebeenuselesstohaveproceededfurtherthantohave
definedthejudicialpowerandthetribunalsinwhichitshouldbevested.The
subsequentpartofthesectionismeresurplusageisentirelywithoutmeaningif
suchistobetheconstruction.IfCongressremainsatlibertytogivethiscourtappellate
jurisdictionwheretheConstitutionhasdeclaredtheirjurisdictionshallbeoriginal,and

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html 23/29
1/7/2017 Marburyv.Madison(fulltext)::5U.S.137(1803)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

originaljurisdictionwheretheConstitutionhasdeclareditshallbeappellate,the
distributionofjurisdictionmadeintheConstitution,isformwithoutsubstance.

Affirmativewordsareoften,intheiroperation,negativeofotherobjectsthanthose
affirmed,and,inthiscase,anegativeorexclusivesensemustbegiventothemorthey
havenooperationatall.

ItcannotbepresumedthatanyclauseintheConstitutionisintendedtobewithout
effect,andthereforesuchconstructionisinadmissibleunlessthewordsrequireit.

Page5U.S.175

IfthesolicitudeoftheConventionrespectingourpeacewithforeignpowersinduceda
provisionthattheSupremeCourtshouldtakeoriginaljurisdictionincaseswhichmight
besupposedtoaffectthem,yettheclausewouldhaveproceedednofurtherthanto
provideforsuchcasesifnofurtherrestrictiononthepowersofCongresshadbeen
intended.Thattheyshouldhaveappellatejurisdictioninallothercases,withsuch
exceptionsasCongressmightmake,isnorestrictionunlessthewordsbedeemed
exclusiveoforiginaljurisdiction.

Whenaninstrumentorganizingfundamentallyajudicialsystemdividesitintoone
SupremeandsomanyinferiorcourtsastheLegislaturemayordainandestablish,then
enumeratesitspowers,andproceedssofartodistributethemastodefinethe
jurisdictionoftheSupremeCourtbydeclaringthecasesinwhichitshalltakeoriginal
jurisdiction,andthatinothersitshalltakeappellatejurisdiction,theplainimportofthe
wordsseemstobethat,inoneclassofcases,itsjurisdictionisoriginal,andnot
appellateintheother,itisappellate,andnotoriginal.,Ifanyotherconstructionwould
rendertheclauseinoperative,thatisanadditionalreasonforrejectingsuchother
construction,andforadheringtotheobviousmeaning.

Toenablethiscourtthentoissueamandamus,itmustbeshowntobeanexerciseof
appellatejurisdiction,ortobenecessarytoenablethemtoexerciseappellate
jurisdiction.

Ithasbeenstatedatthebarthattheappellatejurisdictionmaybeexercisedinavariety
offorms,andthat,ifitbethewilloftheLegislaturethatamandamusshouldbeusedfor
thatpurpose,thatwillmustbeobeyed.Thisistrueyetthejurisdictionmustbe
appellate,notoriginal.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html 24/29
1/7/2017 Marburyv.Madison(fulltext)::5U.S.137(1803)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

Itistheessentialcriterionofappellatejurisdictionthatitrevisesandcorrectsthe
proceedingsinacausealreadyinstituted,anddoesnotcreatethatcase.Although,
therefore,amandamusmaybedirectedtocourts,yettoissuesuchawrittoanofficer
forthedeliveryofapaperis,ineffect,thesameastosustainanoriginalactionforthat
paper,andthereforeseemsnottobelongto

Page5U.S.176

appellate,buttooriginaljurisdiction.Neitherisitnecessaryinsuchacaseasthisto
enabletheCourttoexerciseitsappellatejurisdiction.

Theauthority,therefore,giventotheSupremeCourtbytheactestablishingthejudicial
courtsoftheUnitedStatestoissuewritsofmandamustopublicofficersappearsnotto
bewarrantedbytheConstitution,anditbecomesnecessarytoinquirewhethera
jurisdictionsoconferredcanbeexercised.

ThequestionwhetheranactrepugnanttotheConstitutioncanbecomethelawofthe
landisaquestiondeeplyinterestingtotheUnitedStates,but,happily,notofan
intricacyproportionedtoitsinterest.Itseemsonlynecessarytorecognisecertain
principles,supposedtohavebeenlongandwellestablished,todecideit.

Thatthepeoplehaveanoriginalrighttoestablishfortheirfuturegovernmentsuch
principlesas,intheiropinion,shallmostconducetotheirownhappinessisthebasison
whichthewholeAmericanfabrichasbeenerected.Theexerciseofthisoriginalrightisa
verygreatexertionnorcanitnoroughtittobefrequentlyrepeated.Theprinciples,
therefore,soestablishedaredeemedfundamental.Andastheauthorityfromwhich
theyproceed,issupreme,andcanseldomact,theyaredesignedtobepermanent.

Thisoriginalandsupremewillorganizesthegovernmentandassignstodifferent
departmentstheirrespectivepowers.Itmayeitherstophereorestablishcertainlimits
nottobetranscendedbythosedepartments.

TheGovernmentoftheUnitedStatesisofthelatterdescription.Thepowersofthe
Legislaturearedefinedandlimitedandthatthoselimitsmaynotbemistakenor
forgotten,theConstitutioniswritten.Towhatpurposearepowerslimited,andtowhat
purposeisthatlimitationcommittedtowriting,iftheselimitsmayatanytimebe
passedbythoseintendedtoberestrained?Thedistinctionbetweenagovernmentwith
limitedandunlimitedpowersisabolishedifthoselimitsdonotconfinethepersonson
whomtheyareimposed,andifactsprohibited

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html 25/29
1/7/2017 Marburyv.Madison(fulltext)::5U.S.137(1803)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

Page5U.S.177

andactsallowedareofequalobligation.Itisapropositiontooplaintobecontestedthat
theConstitutioncontrolsanylegislativeactrepugnanttoit,orthattheLegislaturemay
altertheConstitutionbyanordinaryact.

Betweenthesealternativesthereisnomiddleground.TheConstitutioniseithera
superior,paramountlaw,unchangeablebyordinarymeans,oritisonalevelwith
ordinarylegislativeacts,and,likeotheracts,isalterablewhenthelegislatureshall
pleasetoalterit.

Iftheformerpartofthealternativebetrue,thenalegislativeactcontrarytothe
Constitutionisnotlawifthelatterpartbetrue,thenwrittenConstitutionsareabsurd
attemptsonthepartofthepeopletolimitapowerinitsownnatureillimitable.

CertainlyallthosewhohaveframedwrittenConstitutionscontemplatethemasforming
thefundamentalandparamountlawofthenation,andconsequentlythetheoryofevery
suchgovernmentmustbethatanactoftheLegislaturerepugnanttotheConstitutionis
void.

ThistheoryisessentiallyattachedtoawrittenConstitution,andisconsequentlytobe
consideredbythisCourtasoneofthefundamentalprinciplesofoursociety.Itisnot,
therefore,tobelostsightofinthefurtherconsiderationofthissubject.

IfanactoftheLegislaturerepugnanttotheConstitutionisvoid,doesit,
notwithstandingitsinvalidity,bindtheCourtsandobligethemtogiveiteffect?Or,in
otherwords,thoughitbenotlaw,doesitconstitutearuleasoperativeasifitwasalaw?
Thiswouldbetooverthrowinfactwhatwasestablishedintheory,andwouldseem,at
firstview,anabsurditytoogrosstobeinsistedon.Itshall,however,receiveamore
attentiveconsideration.

ItisemphaticallytheprovinceanddutyoftheJudicialDepartmenttosaywhatthelaw
is.Thosewhoapplytheruletoparticularcasesmust,ofnecessity,expoundand
interpretthatrule.Iftwolawsconflictwitheachother,theCourtsmustdecideonthe
operationofeach.

Page5U.S.178

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html 26/29
1/7/2017 Marburyv.Madison(fulltext)::5U.S.137(1803)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

So,ifalawbeinoppositiontotheConstitution,ifboththelawandtheConstitution
applytoaparticularcase,sothattheCourtmusteitherdecidethatcaseconformablyto
thelaw,disregardingtheConstitution,orconformablytotheConstitution,disregarding
thelaw,theCourtmustdeterminewhichoftheseconflictingrulesgovernsthecase.This
isoftheveryessenceofjudicialduty.

If,then,theCourtsaretoregardtheConstitution,andtheConstitutionissuperiorto
anyordinaryactoftheLegislature,theConstitution,andnotsuchordinaryact,must
governthecasetowhichtheybothapply.

Those,then,whocontroverttheprinciplethattheConstitutionistobeconsideredin
courtasaparamountlawarereducedtothenecessityofmaintainingthatcourtsmust
closetheireyesontheConstitution,andseeonlythelaw.

ThisdoctrinewouldsubverttheveryfoundationofallwrittenConstitutions.Itwould
declarethatanactwhich,accordingtotheprinciplesandtheoryofourgovernment,is
entirelyvoid,isyet,inpractice,completelyobligatory.Itwoulddeclarethat,ifthe
Legislatureshalldowhatisexpresslyforbidden,suchact,notwithstandingtheexpress
prohibition,isinrealityeffectual.ItwouldbegivingtotheLegislatureapracticaland
realomnipotencewiththesamebreathwhichprofessestorestricttheirpowerswithin
narrowlimits.Itisprescribinglimits,anddeclaringthatthoselimitsmaybepassedat
pleasure.

Thatitthusreducestonothingwhatwehavedeemedthegreatestimprovementon
politicalinstitutionsawrittenConstitution,wouldofitselfbesufficient,inAmerica
wherewrittenConstitutionshavebeenviewedwithsomuchreverence,forrejectingthe
construction.ButthepeculiarexpressionsoftheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates
furnishadditionalargumentsinfavourofitsrejection.

ThejudicialpoweroftheUnitedStatesisextendedtoallcasesarisingunderthe
Constitution.

Page5U.S.179

Coulditbetheintentionofthosewhogavethispowertosaythat,inusingit,the
Constitutionshouldnotbelookedinto?ThatacasearisingundertheConstitution
shouldbedecidedwithoutexaminingtheinstrumentunderwhichitarises?

Thisistooextravaganttobemaintained.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html 27/29
1/7/2017 Marburyv.Madison(fulltext)::5U.S.137(1803)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

Insomecasesthen,theConstitutionmustbelookedintobythejudges.Andiftheycan
openitatall,whatpartofitaretheyforbiddentoreadortoobey?

TherearemanyotherpartsoftheConstitutionwhichservetoillustratethissubject.

Itisdeclaredthat"notaxordutyshallbelaidonarticlesexportedfromanyState."
Supposeadutyontheexportofcotton,oftobacco,orofflour,andasuitinstitutedto
recoverit.Oughtjudgmenttoberenderedinsuchacase?oughtthejudgestoclosetheir
eyesontheConstitution,andonlyseethelaw?

TheConstitutiondeclaresthat"nobillofattainderorexpostfactolawshallbepassed."

If,however,suchabillshouldbepassedandapersonshouldbeprosecutedunderit,
musttheCourtcondemntodeaththosevictimswhomtheConstitutionendeavoursto
preserve?

"Noperson,'saystheConstitution,'shallbeconvictedoftreasonunlessonthetestimony
oftwowitnessestothesameovertact,oronconfessioninopencourt."

Here.thelanguageoftheConstitutionisaddressedespeciallytotheCourts.It
prescribes,directlyforthem,aruleofevidencenottobedepartedfrom.Ifthe
Legislatureshouldchangethatrule,anddeclareonewitness,oraconfessionoutof
court,sufficientforconviction,musttheconstitutionalprincipleyieldtothelegislative
act?

Fromtheseandmanyotherselectionswhichmightbemade,itisapparentthatthe
framersoftheConstitution

Page5U.S.180

contemplatedthatinstrumentasaruleforthegovernmentofcourts,aswellasofthe
Legislature.

Whyotherwisedoesitdirectthejudgestotakeanoathtosupportit?Thisoathcertainly
appliesinanespecialmannertotheirconductintheirofficialcharacter.Howimmoral
toimposeitonthemiftheyweretobeusedastheinstruments,andtheknowing
instruments,forviolatingwhattheysweartosupport!

Theoathofoffice,too,imposedbytheLegislature,iscompletelydemonstrativeofthe
legislativeopiniononthissubject.Itisinthesewords:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html 28/29
1/7/2017 Marburyv.Madison(fulltext)::5U.S.137(1803)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

"IdosolemnlyswearthatIwilladministerjusticewithoutrespecttopersons,anddo
equalrighttothepoorandtotherichandthatIwillfaithfullyandimpartially
dischargeallthedutiesincumbentonmeasaccordingtothebestofmyabilitiesand
understanding,agreeablytotheConstitutionandlawsoftheUnitedStates."

WhydoesajudgesweartodischargehisdutiesagreeablytotheConstitutionofthe
UnitedStatesifthatConstitutionformsnoruleforhisgovernment?ifitisclosedupon
himandcannotbeinspectedbyhim?

Ifsuchbetherealstateofthings,thisisworsethansolemnmockery.Toprescribeorto
takethisoathbecomesequallyacrime.

Itisalsonotentirelyunworthyofobservationthat,indeclaringwhatshallbethe
supremelawoftheland,theConstitutionitselfisfirstmentioned,andnotthelawsof
theUnitedStatesgenerally,butthoseonlywhichshallbemadeinpursuanceofthe
Constitution,havethatrank.

Thus,theparticularphraseologyoftheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesconfirmsand
strengthenstheprinciple,supposedtobeessentialtoallwrittenConstitutions,thata
lawrepugnanttotheConstitutionisvoid,andthatcourts,aswellasotherdepartments,
areboundbythatinstrument.

Therulemustbedischarged.

Disclaimer:OfficialSupremeCourtcaselawisonlyfoundintheprintversionoftheUnitedStates
Reports.Justiacaselawisprovidedforgeneralinformationalpurposesonly,andmaynotreflect
currentlegaldevelopments,verdictsorsettlements.Wemakenowarrantiesorguaranteesaboutthe
accuracy,completeness,oradequacyoftheinformationcontainedonthissiteorinformationlinked
tofromthissite.Pleasecheckofficialsources.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html 29/29