Marbury Vs. Madison: The Supreme Court Case

The Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison occurred in 1803. During President John Adams last few hours as President, he appointed Marbury and a few other people as Supreme Court Justices. The Senate confirmed his nominations, and the commissions were signed. John Marshall, President Adams' secretary of state did not physically deliver the commissions before his presidency ended because he simply ran out of time. Thomas Jefferson became President after Adams and did not to allow his Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver the commission to Marbury. The plaintiff, in this case Marbury, sued Madison in the Supreme Court and argued that in refusing to deliver the commission, Madison was neglecting his Constitutional duty.

The main questions

of the court case were as follows: Do the plaintiffs have a right to receive their commissions?

Can they sue for their commissions in court? Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order the delivery of their commissions? Chief Justice John Marshall found that the plaintiffs did indeed have a right to receive their commissions even though they were not physically given to them before John Adam’s presidency ended. John Marshall declared that once the commissions were signed by the President, the appointment process was finalized and complete. Therefore, Jefferson was not following the law by refusing to give commission. The Supreme Court also decided that since Marbury and others had been given a commission by President Adams, they had acquired rights to their positions. If those rights are denied, then they can sue to obtain them. The important question of whether the Supreme Court has the authority to order the delivery of their commissions was answered in an incredibly creative and remarkable way by Chief Justice John Marshall. Marbury and others demanded that the Supreme court use their power of writ of mandamus found in the Judiciary Act of 1789 in order to mandate that

the commission be delivered. John Marshall finds that this act is an expansion of original jurisdiction. It expanded the power that the court had under the constitution. Marshall then asked what would happen if the judges could continue to expand the power of the Supreme Court just by passing laws. One interpretation would give the Supreme Court a tremendous amount of power as they could potentially and continuously amend the constitution by creating new laws. Therefore, John Marshall found that section 13 of the Judiciary Act to be unconstitutional as it directly conflicts with Article III Section 2 of the constitution. From then on, he established the precedent that the Supreme Court could determine something as unconstitutional.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed with Marbury, but decided they lacked the authority to exercise this amount of over, so therefore canceled Marbury’s claim. The majority opinion found that Marbury was entitled to his position, but the court was unable to grant it to him because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act conflicted with Article III Section 2 of the constitution, therefore making that section of the Judiciary Act null and void.
Personally, I believe that the Supreme Court Judges performed a tremendously noble and selfless act.

They took it upon themselves to check and decide to limit their power and decrease, by determining part of the Judiciary Act as unconstitutional, in order to keep a better balance between the branches. If they had not made this decision, the Supreme Court would have essentially been empowered to make any law that could potentially override the constitution. By establishing that the constitution takes precedent, this issue was avoided. Another aspect that I admire is that even though most of the justices were Federalists, and Marbury and the others were also Federalists, they still carried out an unbiased interpretation of the law. They could have easily gone against the Jefferson organization and accepted these people as judges and ordered the executive branch to obey. They gained trust and appreciation from the new President of the United States at the cost of Marbury but this was a well calculated and necessary trade-off. I found it extremely compelling that Marshall went back to the constitution to determine the legitimacy of a law. This set the precedent of Judicial review, where the Supreme Court can deem a law created by congress unconstitutional. This precedent helps keep other branches in check and further balances the three branches of government, truly showing the brilliance and cleverness of Marshall’s decision and the legal process in which he got there.

Ultimately, what I most applaud is the Supreme Court’s ability to overlook political affiliations, cementing the balance of power and keeping the country united.