The U.S. Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison was decided on
February 24, 1803. At issue was a simple dispute around the political
appointment of William Marbury to justice of the peace in Washington,
D.C. The issues surrounding the appointment, however, were complex.
The conflict really involved the distribution of governmental power
among the three sections of government: the legislative branch, the
executive branch, and the judicial branche.
Political positioning
The election of 1800 signaled an important change in the political climate of the nation. Through presidents George Washington
(1732–1799; served 1789–97) and John Adams (1735–1826; served
1797–1801), the Federalist Party had enjoyed a period of great influence, defining the powers of the new American government under the
Constitution of 1787. The election of 1800 put DemocraticRepublican Party candidate Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826; served
1801–9) in the White House and gave that party control of Congress
beginning in its 1801 term. This threatened certain governmental policies the Federalists had implemented during their control of the federal
government.
Before Adams left office and Congress shifted to the DemocraticRepublicans, both worked to strengthen Federalist control of the judiciary. Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801. Under it, the number of
justices on the Supreme Court was reduced from six to five, sixteen circuit courts were established (with judges appointed by the president),
and several other minor judicial posts were created.
Reducing the number of Supreme Court justices would prevent
Jefferson from naming a replacement the next time a justice died or left office. Additionally, Adams appointed his secretary of state, John
Marshall (1755–1835), to an existing vacancy for chief justice of the
Supreme Court. This placed the Supreme Court securely under
Federalist control.
Creating circuit courts and minor courts allowed Adams to appoint
Federalists to new judicial positions as the Democratic-Republicans were
taking power. Adams managed to get his appointments through
Congress for approval during the last days of his administration. Adams
and Secretary of State Marshall, however, failed to have all the commissions delivered to the appointees by the time Adams’s term ended on
March 4, 1801. One of the commissions that had not been delivered was
for Marbury’s justice of the peace post.
The case
Jefferson was well aware of Adams’s plan to pack the judiciary with
Federalists. When Jefferson took office, he and his secretary of state, James
Madison (1751–1836), refused to deliver the remaining commissions to
the waiting appointees. As a result, Marbury filed a lawsuit against
Madison directly in the U.S. Supreme Court,
where Marshall now sat as the chief justice.
According to section thirteen of the
Judiciary Act of 1789, the Supreme Court had
the power to issue a court order demanding that
official acts be carried out. Such an order is
called a writ of mandamus. Marbury asked the
Court to issue a writ of mandamus to force
Madison to perform his duty of delivering the
undelivered commissions.
Jefferson and his administration effectively
ignored the Court case. The president resented
judicial interference in what he considered to be
an executive function.
The Supreme Court decided the case by a
unanimous vote of five to zero. Chief Justice
Marshall, who had failed to deliver Marbury’s
commission by the end of Adams’s term, wrote
the opinion for the Court. Marshall rebuked
President Jefferson, declaring that Marbury had a right to receive the commission. The Court, however, lacked the power
to issue a writ of mandamus, according to Marshall. Congress, said the
Court, had acted beyond its own power under the U.S. Constitution
when it passed section thirteen of the Judiciary Act to give the Supreme
Court the power to hear cases for writs of mandamus. Therefore, the
Court decided, that section of the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional,
and the Supreme Court could not exercise power under it.
Marshall’s opinion was a political masterpiece, according to many
legal scholars. Marshall avoided direct conflict with Jefferson by saying
the Court lacked the power to issue the writ of mandamus. The result,
however, expanded judicial power tremendously. It said the federal judiciary has power to decide when a law passed by Congress violates the
U.S. Constitution. This power, called judicial review, is controversial.
Scholars, historians, and other Americans disagree sharply about whether
judicial review is an important part of the system of checks and balances or whether it gives the judiciary too much power over laws passed by the people’s representatives in Congress.