MARBURY V.

MADISON

Share on facebookShare on emailShare on print|More Sharing ServicesMore

View this case and other resources at:

Citation. 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803)

Brief Fact Summary. William Marbury (Marbury), an end-of-term appointee of President John Adams (President
Adams) to a justice of the peace position in the District of Columbia, brought suit against President Thomas
Jefferson’s (President Jefferson) Secretary of State, James Madison, seeking delivery of his commission.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) has constitutional authority to
review executive actions and legislative acts. The Supreme Court has limited jurisdiction, the bounds of which are
set by the United States Constitution (Constitution), which may not be enlarged by the Congress.

Facts. Before the inauguration of President Jefferson, outgoing President Adams attempted to secure Federalist
control of the judiciary by creating new judgeships and filling them with Federalist appointees. Included in these
efforts was the nomination by President Adams, under the Organic Act of the District of Columbia (the District), of 42
new justices of the peace for the District, which were confirmed by the Senate the day before President Jefferson’s
inauguration. A few of the commissions, including Marbury’s, were undelivered when President Jefferson took office.
The new president instructed Secretary of State James Madison to withhold delivery of the commissions. Marbury
sought mandamus in the Supreme Court, requiring James Madison to deliver his commission.

Issue. Is Marbury entitled to mandamus from the Supreme Court?

Held. No. Case dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

As the President signed Marbury’s commission after his confirmation, the appointment has been made, and Marbury
has a right to the commission
Given that the law imposed a duty on the office of the president to deliver Marbury’s commission, that the Supreme
Court has the power to review executive actions when the executive acts as an officer of the law and the nature of
the writ of mandamus to direct an officer of the government “to do a particular thing therein specified,” mandamus is
the appropriate remedy, if available to the Supreme Court.
To issue mandamus to the Secretary of State really is to sustain an original action, which is (in this case) outside the
constitutional limits of jurisdiction imposed on the Supreme Court.

Discussion. The importance of Marbury v. Madison is both political and legal. Although the case establishes the
traditions of judicial review and a litigable constitution on which the remainder of constitutional law rests, it also
transformed the Supreme Court from an incongruous institution to an equipotent head of a branch of the federal
government.