Why is the marbury v. Madison case considered a landmark case?

Answer 1

In Marbury v. Madison, (1803) the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Constitution gave the Court the authority of judicial review - that is, it empowered the Court to review acts of the Legislative, and, by extension, Executive, branches to evaluate whether legislation was constitutional. If found unconstitutional, the Court could overrule the law.

Historical Context

The Marbury case occurred during an era when the United States was still refining the balance of power between the three branches of government, and trying to adjust to differences between English laws and traditions followed in Colonial America and the new mandates established by the Constitution of the United States. There was considerable political tension and disagreement (as there is in the U.S. today) between parties that had different visions and strategies for how the government should be run.

Prior to 1800, Federalist ideologies dominated government. Federalists, like the first two Presidents, George Washington and John Adams, favored a stronger central government and rule by the elite. The anti-Federalists, which morphed into the Democratic-Republican party, had an opposite intent, favoring a less patriarchal government and placing more emphasis on the Bill of Rights and state sovereignty. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were early leaders of the anti-Federalist, Democratic-Republican party.

Presidential elections were somewhat different in the 18th century than they are today. At that time, the President and Vice-President were separately elected offices, both filled by men who had contended for the Presidency. The candidate who received the greatest number of votes became President, while the candidate with the second greatest number of votes became Vice-President. This lead to situations where the President and Vice-President represented separate parties that were politically hostile to each other.

John Adams, a Federalist, won the Presidential election in 1796. Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republic, won the Vice-Presidency. The Federalists controlled both the executive and legislative branches at that time. By the next election, in 1800, Federalist policies had angered enough people that Adams lost the election badly.

Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, both Democratic-Republicans, received an equal number of electoral votes, so the final decision as to who would assume which role fell to the House of Representatives. Jefferson, championed by a popular Alexander Hamilton, won the Presidency. With both Presidential and Vice-Presidential offices filled by Democratic-Republicans, as well as the majority of seats in both the House and Senate, the new administration portended a radical shift in the government's ideology.

Before the new administration could take office, however, the Sixth Congress passed two pieces of legislation in early 1801 that expanded the federal court system. The first, The Judiciary Act of 1801, which passed February 13, 1801, reduced the size of the Supreme Court from 6 members to 5, by attrition, to impede Jefferson's ability to change the composition of the Court (which was entirely Federalist at that time). It also relieved the Justices of their "circuit riding" responsibilities, reorganizing the lower courts into six circuits, and creating positions for 16 new judges.

The second piece of legislation, the Organic Act of 1801 (aka "An Act Concerning the District of Columbia"), which passed on February 27, 1801, is more directly relevant to the Marbury v. Madison case. The dispute revolved around justice of the peace appointments awarded under the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801, in which Congress formally incorporated landed ceded to the federal government by Virginia and Maryland into the District of Columbia, dividing the territory into two "cities": Alexandria, which operated under Virginia law; and Georgetown, which operated under Maryland law.

This created a number of lower-level judicial positions (the most commonly referenced number is 42), including "...such number of discreet persons to be justices of the peace, as the President of the United States shall from time to time think expedient."

The out-going President, John Adams, in a desperate attempt to bolster Federalist influence, quickly appointed 42 members of his own party to the justice of the peace positions, and 16 Federalist judges to head the Circuit courts created by the new Judiciary Act of 1801 (passed on February 13, 1801). These later became known as the "Midnight Judges," after the fact that they were nominated March 2, and confirmed by the Senate on March 3, 1801, Adams' final day in office.

William Marbury was one of the men appointed to a five-year term as justice of the peace in the newly created District of Columbia.

Background of Marbury v. Madison

John Marshall, who was Secretary of State under Adams, was responsible for completing the paperwork and delivering the official "commissions" to each of the newly appointed judges, but the administration ended before he could undertake this task. Adams' justices of the peace were nominated on March 2, 1801, and confirmed by the Senate on March 3, 1801. Although Marshall worked late into the night completing the registration of appointments and affixing the official Presidential seal, there was no time for Marshall to deliver the paperwork before he and Adams left office on March 4.

Marshall, himself, had been newly confirmed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (February 4, 1801), but agreed to remain in office as Secretary of State until the administration changed.

When Thomas Jefferson was elected President in 1800, there were no members of his party in the federal judiciary (not surprising because the Democratic-Republican party had formed only recently from a group formerly known as the Anti-federalists). In fact, virtually the entire judiciary, including every member of the Supreme Court, was Federalist, a legacy of both John Adams and George Washington. Jefferson decided to take corrective measures.

First, he allegedly reduced the number of justice of the peace appointments from 42 to 30, ostensibly as a matter of economy. Of the remaining 30 appointments, Jefferson allowed 25 Federalist appointees to keep their positions, and nominated members of his own party to fill the remaining five slots.

William Marbury, whom Adams had appointed justice of the peace for the District of Columbia, was one of the 12 whose commissions were eliminated.

Marbury filed suit against Secretary of State Madison, and petitioned the Supreme Court, now under the leadership of John Marshall, for a writ of mandamus, a court order requiring an official to perform - or refrain from performing - a specific duty for which he had responsibility. Marbury specifically sought an order compelling Madison to deliver his commission.

Marshall granted a preliminary motion asking Madison to "show cause" why the Court should not issue a writ of mandamus, which is standard procedure. This gives the person who would receive the writ an opportunity to present valid reasons for failing to take the action in question. Madison never responded, which was considered an insult to the judiciary.

Within weeks of the request, Congress, which was now controlled by the Democratic-Republicans, repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801. This had two effects: 1) It eliminated the new Circuit court realignment, dispatching all of Adams' Circuit judges through legislation; and 2) The controlling law once again became the Judiciary Act of 1789.

In 1801, Congress changed the biannual Terms of the Court from February and August to June and December. When the law was repealed, the Terms reverted to the original schedule. When Congress passed the Judiciary act of 1802, they decided to prevent the Supreme Court from intervening in the impeachment process by suspending its next Term until February 1803, fourteen months after the last sitting. Marbury's case, which was originally on the docket for the June 1802 Term, was therefore postponed until February 1803.

The political nature of Marbury v. Madison became apparent when Marbury petitioned Congress for a copy of their minutes for the day he was confirmed, and was denied his request by the Democratic-Republican-controlled Senate.

Madison failed to appear in court on the day the trial began. US Attorney General Levi Lincoln, who would ordinarily have argued the case for Madison, appeared only as a witness (Lincoln had assumed responsibility for the duties of Secretary of State for several days before Madison took office); a local attorney, Charles Lee, represented the petitioners. Jefferson did not provide counsel to represent the defense.

Lee argued that Marbury's commission was valid, and he had a right to receive it. He also asserted that the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the US Supreme Court original jurisdiction over the case. Levi Lincoln disagreed. This left the court to deliberate three issues:

1. Whether Marbury remained entitled to his job;
2. Whether the judicial system was the proper venue for contesting Madison's decision; and,
3. Whether the Supreme Court had the jurisdictional authority to force the Secretary of State to deliver the commission.

It also created a political dilemma for Marshall. If he ruled in Marbury's favor and issued a writ of mandamus, he could be almost certain Madison and Jefferson would refuse to comply. Since the Court had no power to enforce its mandates, such action would weaken the Judicial branch of government and set a dangerous precedent.

Opposing the popular Jefferson raised the potential of Congress impeaching Marshall. The House had already initiated proceedings against Justice Chase, and were using the power of impeachment to remove Federalist judges from courts across the country, in an effort to weaken the party.

On the other hand, if the Court denied Marbury his writ, the justices would appear diffident and subordinate to the Executive and Legislative branches, which would not only weaken the Judicial branch, but also undermine the rule of law.

Ruling in Marbury v. Madison

Marshall considered these questions for ten days before arriving at a solution that would give partial victories to both parties, while increasing the influence of the Supreme Court. In a unanimous decision, the Court declared Marbury and the other plaintiffs were legally entitled to their commissions, but that the court lacked jurisdiction to issue the writ of mandamus. He also delivered a scathing criticism of Congress designed to assert the Court's authority over questions of constitutional law.

Marshall wrote:

"Mr. Marbury . . . since his commission was signed by the president, and sealed by the secretary of state, was appointed. . . . To withhold the commission, therefore, is an act deemed by the court not warranted by law, but violative of a vested legal right."

Further, Marshall asserted, Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because Congress had vested in the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over issues not specifically ordained by the Constitution (the validity of this argument is debatable, but Jefferson had no motive to contest Marshall's reasoning, since the verdict supported his decision).

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other the courts must decide on the operation of each. . . .

"So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. . . . "

Congress could not give the Supreme Court power to issue an order forcing Madison to act because the Constitution did not specifically afford the Court original jurisdiction in the matter; rather, they could serve only as an appellate court on the issue and could not initiate an action.

Final Outcome

Marbury never received his commission. He remained in his Georgetown home, Forest-Marbury House (purchased for ~$5,850 in 1800), continued to practice law, and entered the banking industry. In 1809 he became one of the founders and a Board member of Bank of the Potomac; in 1814 he became on of the founders and President of Farmers and Mechanics' Bank.

Case Citation

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)

NB: Today, Marshall would most likely be expected to recuse himself from the case for conflict of interest.

To view the Court's opinion in its entirety, see Related Links, below. It's Marbury Vs Madison (not maybury) in a convoluted way this case established that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review actions of the other two branches of the government for Constitutionality.
Apex question, copyright violation

Answer 2

The Marbury v. Madison case is considered a landmark case because it established the principle of judicial review in the United States. This decision gave the Supreme Court the power to interpret and declare laws unconstitutional, thereby ensuring the balance of power between the different branches of government. It solidified the Court's role as the final arbiter of the constitutionality of laws.