HOME

TheInfoList



OR:

''Marbury v. Madison'', 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), was a
landmark A landmark is a recognizable natural or artificial feature used for navigation, a feature that stands out from its near environment and is often visible from long distances. In modern use, the term can also be applied to smaller structures or f ...
U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of
judicial review in the United States In the United States, judicial review is the legal power of a court to determine if a statute, treaty, or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Con ...
, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes that they find to violate the
Constitution of the United States The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It superseded the Articles of Confederation, the nation's first constitution, in 1789. Originally comprising seven articles, it delineates the nati ...
. Decided in 1803, ''Marbury'' is regarded as the single most important decision in American constitutional law. The Court's landmark decision established that the U.S. Constitution is actual law, not just a statement of political principles and ideals, and helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate
executive Executive ( exe., exec., execu.) may refer to: Role or title * Executive, a senior management role in an organization ** Chief executive officer (CEO), one of the highest-ranking corporate officers (executives) or administrators ** Executive di ...
and
judicial The judiciary (also known as the judicial system, judicature, judicial branch, judiciative branch, and court or judiciary system) is the system of courts that adjudicates legal disputes/disagreements and interprets, defends, and applies the law ...
branches of the
federal government A federation (also known as a federal state) is a political entity characterized by a union of partially self-governing provinces, states, or other regions under a central federal government ( federalism). In a federation, the self-gover ...
. The case originated in early 1801 as part of the political and ideological rivalry between outgoing
President President most commonly refers to: *President (corporate title) * President (education), a leader of a college or university * President (government title) President may also refer to: Automobiles * Nissan President, a 1966–2010 Japanese ...
John Adams John Adams (October 30, 1735 – July 4, 1826) was an American statesman, attorney, diplomat, writer, and Founding Fathers of the United States, Founding Father who served as the second president of the United States from 1797 to 1801. Befor ...
and incoming President
Thomas Jefferson Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743 – July 4, 1826) was an American statesman, diplomat, lawyer, architect, philosopher, and Founding Fathers of the United States, Founding Father who served as the third president of the United States from 18 ...
. Adams had lost the U.S. presidential election of 1800 to Jefferson. In March 1801, just two days before his term as president ended, Adams appointed several dozen
Federalist Party The Federalist Party was a conservative political party which was the first political party in the United States. As such, under Alexander Hamilton, it dominated the national government from 1789 to 1801. Defeated by the Jeffersonian Repu ...
supporters to new circuit judge and
justice of the peace A justice of the peace (JP) is a judicial officer of a lower or '' puisne'' court, elected or appointed by means of a commission ( letters patent) to keep the peace. In past centuries the term commissioner of the peace was often used with the s ...
positions in an attempt to frustrate Jefferson and his supporters in the
Democratic-Republican Party The Democratic-Republican Party, known at the time as the Republican Party and also referred to as the Jeffersonian Republican Party among other names, was an American political party founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the earl ...
. The U.S. Senate quickly confirmed Adams's appointments, but outgoing Secretary of State
John Marshall John Marshall (September 24, 1755July 6, 1835) was an American politician and lawyer who served as the fourth Chief Justice of the United States from 1801 until his death in 1835. He remains the longest-serving chief justice and fourth-longes ...
did not deliver all of the new judges' commissions before Adams's departure and Jefferson's inauguration. Jefferson believed the undelivered commissions were void and instructed his Secretary of State,
James Madison James Madison Jr. (March 16, 1751June 28, 1836) was an American statesman, diplomat, and Founding Father. He served as the fourth president of the United States from 1809 to 1817. Madison is hailed as the "Father of the Constitution" for h ...
, not to deliver them. One of the undelivered commissions belonged to
William Marbury William Marbury (November 7, 1762 – March 13, 1835) was a highly successful American businessman and one of the " Midnight Judges" appointed by United States President John Adams the day before he left office. He was the plaintiff in the landma ...
, a Maryland businessman who had been a strong supporter of Adams and the Federalists. In late 1801, after Madison had repeatedly refused to deliver his commission, Marbury filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court asking the Court to issue a writ of
mandamus (; ) is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do (or refrain fr ...
forcing Madison to deliver his commission. In an opinion written by Chief Justice Marshall, the Court held firstly that Madison's refusal to deliver Marbury's commission was illegal, and secondly that it was normally proper for a court in such situations to order the government official in question to deliver the commission. But in Marbury's case, the Court did not order Madison to comply. Examining the law Congress had passed to define the Supreme Court jurisdiction over types of cases like Marbury's—Section 13 of the
Judiciary Act of 1789 The Judiciary Act of 1789 (ch. 20, ) was a United States federal statute enacted on September 24, 1789, during the first session of the First United States Congress. It established the federal judiciary of the United States. Article III, Sec ...
—the Court found that the Act had expanded the definition of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction beyond what was originally set forth in the U.S. Constitution. The Court then struck down Section 13 of the Act, announcing that American courts have the power to invalidate laws that they find to violate the Constitution—a power now known as "judicial review". Because striking down the law removed any jurisdiction the Court might have had over the case, the Court could not issue the writ that Marbury had requested.


Background

In the fiercely contested U.S. presidential election of 1800, the three main candidates were Thomas Jefferson,
Aaron Burr Aaron Burr Jr. (February 6, 1756 – September 14, 1836) was an American politician and lawyer who served as the third vice president of the United States from 1801 to 1805. Burr's legacy is defined by his famous personal conflict with Alexand ...
, and the incumbent president, John Adams. Adams espoused the pro-business and pro-national-government politics of the Federalist Party and its leader,
Alexander Hamilton Alexander Hamilton (January 11, 1755 or 1757July 12, 1804) was an American military officer, statesman, and Founding Father who served as the first United States secretary of the treasury from 1789 to 1795. Born out of wedlock in Charle ...
. Jefferson and Burr were leaders of the opposing Democratic-Republican Party, which favored agriculture and decentralization. American public opinion had gradually turned against the Federalists in the months leading up to the election, mainly due to the Federalists' use of the controversial Alien and Sedition Acts, as well as growing tensions with
Great Britain Great Britain is an island in the North Atlantic Ocean off the northwest coast of continental Europe. With an area of , it is the largest of the British Isles, the largest European island and the ninth-largest island in the world. It ...
, with whom the Federalists favored close ties. Jefferson easily won the election's popular vote but only narrowly defeated Adams in the Electoral College. As the results of the election became clear, Adams and the Federalists became determined to exercise their remaining influence before Jefferson took office, and they did everything they could to fill federal offices with "anti-Jeffersonians" who were loyal to the Federalists. On March2, 1801, just two days before his presidential term ended, Adams nominated nearly 60 Federalist supporters to new circuit judge and justice of the peace positions the Federalist-controlled Congress had recently created. These last-minute nomineeswhom Jefferson's supporters derisively called the " Midnight Judges"included William Marbury, a prosperous businessman from
Maryland Maryland ( ) is a state in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. It shares borders with Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia to its south and west; Pennsylvania to its north; and Delaware and the Atlantic Ocean t ...
. An ardent Federalist, Marbury was active in Maryland politics and had been a vigorous supporter of the Adams presidency. The following day, March 3, the Senate approved Adams's nominations ''en masse''. The appointees' commissions were immediately written out, then signed by Adams and sealed by Secretary of State
John Marshall John Marshall (September 24, 1755July 6, 1835) was an American politician and lawyer who served as the fourth Chief Justice of the United States from 1801 until his death in 1835. He remains the longest-serving chief justice and fourth-longes ...
, who had been named the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in January but agreed to continue serving as Secretary of State for the remaining weeks of Adams's presidency. Marshall then dispatched his younger brother
James Markham Marshall James Markham Marshall (March 12, 1764 – April 26, 1848) was an American lawyer, Revolutionary War soldier and planter who briefly served as United States circuit judge of the United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia . Early l ...
to deliver the commissions to the appointees. With only one day left before Jefferson's inauguration, James Marshall was able to deliver most of the commissions, but a fewincluding Marbury'swere not delivered. The day after, March 4, 1801, Jefferson was sworn in and became the third President of the United States. Jefferson instructed his new Secretary of State, James Madison, to withhold the undelivered commissions. In Jefferson's opinion, the commissions were void because they had not been delivered before Adams left office. Without the commissions, the appointees were unable to assume the offices and duties to which they had been appointed. Over the next several months, Madison continually refused to deliver Marbury's commission to him. Finally, in December 1801, Marbury filed a lawsuit against Madison in the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to force Madison to deliver his commission. This lawsuit resulted in the case of ''Marbury v. Madison''.


Decision

On February 24, 1803, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous 4–0 decision against Marbury. The Court's opinion was written by Chief Justice John Marshall, who structured the Court's opinion around a series of three questions it answered in turn: * First, did Marbury have a right to his commission? * Second, if Marbury had a right to his commission, was there a legal remedy for him to obtain it? * Third, if there was such a remedy, could the Supreme Court legally issue it?


Marbury's right to his commission

The Court began by determining that Marbury had a legal right to his commission. Marshall reasoned that all appropriate procedures were followed: the commission had been properly signed and sealed. Madison had argued that the commissions were void if not delivered, but the Court disagreed, saying that the delivery of the commission was merely a custom, not an essential element of the commission itself. The Court said that because Marbury's commission was valid, Madison's withholding it was "violative of a vested legal right" on Marbury's part.


Marbury's legal remedy

Turning to the second question, the Court said that the law provided Marbury a remedy for Madison's unlawful withholding of his commission. Marshall wrote that "it is a general and indisputable rule, that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law, whenever that right is invaded." This rule derives from the ancient Roman legal maxim ("where there is a legal right, there is a legal remedy"), which was well established in the English
common law In law, common law (also known as judicial precedent, judge-made law, or case law) is the body of law created by judges and similar quasi-judicial tribunals by virtue of being stated in written opinions."The common law is not a brooding omniprese ...
. In what the American legal scholar
Akhil Amar Akhil Reed Amar (born September 6, 1958) is an American legal scholar known for his expertise in constitutional law and criminal procedure. He holds the position of Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University, and is an ad ...
called "one of the most important and inspiring passages" of the opinion, Marshall wrote: The Court then confirmed that a
writ of mandamus (; ) is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do (or refrain fro ...
a type of court order that commands a government official to perform an act their official duties legally require them to performwas the proper remedy for Marbury's situation. But this raised the issue of whether the Court, which was part of the judicial branch of the government, had the power to command Madison, who as secretary of state was part of the executive branch of the government. The Court held that so long as the remedy involved a mandatory duty to a specific person, and not a political matter left to discretion, the courts could provide the legal remedy. Borrowing a phrase John Adams had drafted in 1779 for the Massachusetts State Constitution, Marshall wrote: "The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men."


The Supreme Court's jurisdiction

This brought Marshall to the third question: did the Supreme Court have proper jurisdiction over the case that would allow it to legally issue the writ of mandamus? The answer depended entirely on how the Court interpreted the text of the
Judiciary Act of 1789 The Judiciary Act of 1789 (ch. 20, ) was a United States federal statute enacted on September 24, 1789, during the first session of the First United States Congress. It established the federal judiciary of the United States. Article III, Sec ...
. Congress had passed the Judiciary Act to establish the American federal court system, since the U.S. Constitution only mandates a Supreme Court and leaves the rest of the U.S. federal judicial power to reside in "such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Section 13 of the Judiciary Act sets out the Supreme Court's original and appellate jurisdictions. Marbury had argued that the language of Section 13 of the Judiciary Act gave the Supreme Court the authority to issue writs of mandamus when hearing cases under original jurisdiction, not just appellate jurisdiction. As Marshall explains in the opinion, gives a court the power to be the first to hear and decide a case; gives a court the power to hear an appeal from a lower court's decision and to "revise and correct" the previous decision. Although the language on the power to issue writs of mandamus appears after Section 13's sentence on appellate jurisdiction, rather than with the earlier sentences on original jurisdiction, a semicolon separates it from the clause on appellate jurisdiction. The section does not make clear whether the mandamus clause was intended to be read as part of the appellate clause or on its own—in the opinion, Marshall quoted only the end of the section—and the law's wording can plausibly be read either way. In the end, the Court agreed with Marbury and interpreted section 13 of the Judiciary Act to have authorized the Court to exercise original jurisdiction over cases involving disputes over writs of mandamus. But as Marshall pointed out, this meant that the Judiciary Act contradicted Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes the judicial branch of the U.S. government. Article III defines the Supreme Court's jurisdiction as follows: Article III says that the Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction over cases where a
U.S. state In the United States, a state is a constituent political entity, of which there are 50. Bound together in a political union, each state holds governmental jurisdiction over a separate and defined geographic territory where it shares its sove ...
is a party to a lawsuit or where a lawsuit involves foreign dignitaries. Neither of these categories covered Marbury's lawsuit, which was a dispute over a writ of mandamus for his justice of the peace commission. So, according to the Constitution, the Court did not have original jurisdiction over a case like Marbury's. But the Court had interpreted the Judiciary Act to have given it original jurisdiction over lawsuits for writs of mandamus. This meant that the Judiciary Act had taken the Constitution's initial scope for the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, which did not cover cases involving writs of mandamus, and expanded it to include them. The Court ruled that Congress cannot increase the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction as it was set down in the Constitution, and it therefore held that the relevant portion of Section 13 of the Judiciary Act violated Article III of the Constitution.


Judicial review and striking down the law

After ruling that it conflicted with the Constitution, the Court struck down Section 13 of the Judiciary Act in the U.S. Supreme Court's first ever declaration of the power of
judicial review Judicial review is a process under which executive, legislative and administrative actions are subject to review by the judiciary. A court with authority for judicial review may invalidate laws, acts and governmental actions that are incomp ...
. The Court ruled that American federal courts have the power to refuse to give any effect to congressional legislation that is inconsistent with their interpretation of the Constitutiona move colloquially known as "striking down" laws. The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly give the American judiciary the power of judicial review. Nevertheless, the Court's opinion gives many reasons in support of the judiciary's possession of the power. First, Marshall reasoned that the written nature of the Constitution inherently established judicial review. Borrowing from Alexander Hamilton's essay '' Federalist No. 78'', Marshall wrote: Second, the Court declared that deciding the constitutionality of the laws it applies is an inherent part of the American judiciary's role. In what has become the most famous and frequently quoted line of the opinion, Marshall wrote: Marshall reasoned that the Constitution places limits on the American government's powers, and that those limits would be meaningless unless they were subject to judicial review and enforcement. He reasoned that the Constitution's provisions limiting Congress's powersuch as the export tax clause or the prohibitions on
bills of attainder A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person, or a group of people, guilty of some crime, and punishing them, often without a trial. As with attai ...
and ''ex post facto'' lawsmeant that in some cases judges would be forced to choose between enforcing the Constitution or following Congress. Marshall held "virtually as a matter of iron logic" that in the event of conflict between the Constitution and statutory laws passed by Congress, the constitutional law must be supreme. Third, the Court said that denying the supremacy of the Constitution over Congress's acts would mean that "courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law." This, Marshall wrote, would make Congress omnipotent, since none of the laws it passed would ever be invalid. Marshall then gave several other reasons in favor of judicial review. He reasoned that the authorization in Article III of the Constitution that the Court can decide cases arising "under this Constitution" implied that the Court had the power to strike down laws conflicting with the Constitution. This, Marshall wrote, meant that the
Founders Founder or Founders may refer to: Places *Founders Park, a stadium in South Carolina, formerly known as Carolina Stadium * Founders Park, a waterside park in Islamorada, Florida Arts, entertainment, and media * Founders (''Star Trek''), the ali ...
were willing to have the American judiciary use and interpret the Constitution when judging cases. He also said that federal judges' oaths of office—in which they swear to discharge their duties impartially and "agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States"—requires them to support the Constitution. Lastly, Marshall reasoned that judicial review is implied in the
Supremacy Clause The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States ( Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thu ...
of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, since it declares that the supreme law of the United States is the Constitution and laws made "in Pursuance thereof", rather than the Constitution and all federal laws generally. Having given his list of reasons, Marshall concluded the Court's opinion by reaffirming the Court's ruling on the invalidity of Section 13 of the Judiciary Act and, therefore, the Court's inability to issue Marbury's writ of mandamus.


Analysis


Political dilemma

Besides its legal issues, the case of ''Marbury v. Madison'' also created a difficult political dilemma for John Marshall and the Supreme Court. If the Court had ruled in Marbury's favor and issued a writ of mandamus ordering Madison to deliver Marbury's commission, Jefferson and Madison would probably have simply ignored it, which would have made the Court look impotent and emphasized the "shakiness" of the judiciary. On the other hand, a simple ruling against Marbury would have given Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans a clear political victory over the Federalists. Marshall solved both problems. First, he had the Court rule that Madison's withholding of Marbury's commission was illegal, which pleased the Federalists. But the opinion he wrote also held that the Court could not grant Marbury his requested writ of mandamus, which gave Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans the result they desired. But in what the American legal scholar
Laurence Tribe Laurence Henry Tribe (born October 10, 1941) is an American legal scholar who is a University Professor Emeritus at Harvard University. He previously served as the Carl M. Loeb University Professor at Harvard Law School. A constitutional law sc ...
calls "an oft-told tale ...
hat A hat is a head covering which is worn for various reasons, including protection against weather conditions, ceremonial reasons such as university graduation, religious reasons, safety, or as a fashion accessory. Hats which incorporate mecha ...
remains awe-inspiring", Marshall had the Court rule against Marbury in a way that maneuvered Marbury's simple petition for a writ of mandamus into a case that presented a question that went to the heart of American constitutional law itself. The American political historian Robert G. McCloskey described: Marshall had been looking for a case suitable for introducing judicial review and was eager to use the situation in ''Marbury'' to establish his claim. He introduced judicial reviewa move Jefferson decriedbut used it to strike down a provision of a law that he read to have expanded the Supreme Court's powers, and thereby produced Jefferson's hoped-for result of Marbury losing his case. Marshall "seized the occasion to uphold the institution of judicial review, but he did so in the course of reaching a judgment that his political opponents could neither defy nor protest." Though Jefferson criticized the Court's decision, he accepted it, and Marshall's opinion in ''Marbury'' "articulate a role for the federal courts that survives to this day." The American legal scholar
Erwin Chemerinsky Erwin Chemerinsky (born May 14, 1953) is an American legal scholar known for his studies of United States constitutional law and federal civil procedure. Since 2017, Chemerinsky has been the dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. Previously, he a ...
concludes: "The brilliance of Marshall's opinion cannot be overstated."


Legal criticism

Marshall's historic opinion in ''Marbury v. Madison'' continues to be the subject of critical analysis and inquiry. In a 1955 ''
Harvard Law Review The ''Harvard Law Review'' is a law review published by an independent student group at Harvard Law School. According to the ''Journal Citation Reports'', the ''Harvard Law Review''s 2015 impact factor of 4.979 placed the journal first out of 143 ...
'' article, U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Felix Frankfurter Felix Frankfurter (November 15, 1882 – February 22, 1965) was an Austrian-American jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1939 until 1962, during which period he was a noted advocate of judic ...
emphasized that one can criticize Marshall's opinion in ''Marbury'' without demeaning it: "The courage of ''Marbury v. Madison'' is not minimized by suggesting that its reasoning is not impeccable and its conclusion, however wise, not inevitable." Criticisms of Marshall's opinion in ''Marbury'' usually fall into two general categories. First, some criticize the way Marshall "strove" to reach the conclusion that the U.S. Supreme Court has constitutional authority over the other branches of the U.S. government. Today, American courts generally follow the principle of "constitutional avoidance": if a certain interpretation of a law raises constitutional problems, they prefer to use alternative interpretations that avoid these problems, so long as the alternative interpretations are still plausible. In ''Marbury'', Marshall could have avoided the constitutional questions through different legal rulings. If he had ruled that Marbury did not have a right to his commission until it was delivered, or if he had ruled that refusals to honor political appointments could only be remedied through the political process and not the judicial process, it would have ended the case immediately and the Court would not have reached the case's constitutional issues. Marshall did not do so, and many legal scholars have criticized him for it. Some scholars have responded that the "constitutional avoidance" principle did not exist in 1803, and in any case is "only a general guide for Court action", not an "ironclad rule". Alternatively, it has also been argued that the claim that Marshall "strove" to create a controversy largely vanishes when the case is viewed from the legal perspective of the late 18th century, when American colonies' and states' supreme courts were largely modeled on England's Court of King's Bench, which inherently possessed ''mandamus'' powers. Second, Marshall's arguments for the Court's authority are sometimes said to be mere "series of assertions", rather than substantive reasons logically laid out to support his position. Scholars generally agree that Marshall's series of assertions regarding the U.S. Constitution and the actions of the other branches of government do not "inexorably lead to the conclusion that Marshall draws from them." Marshall's assertion of the American judiciary's authority to review executive branch actions was the most controversial issue when ''Marbury'' was first decided, and several subsequent U.S. presidents have tried to dispute it, to varying degrees. Additionally, it is questionable whether Marshall should have participated in the ''Marbury'' case because of his participating role in the dispute. Marshall was still the acting secretary of state when the nominations were made, and he had signed Marbury and the other men's commissions and had been responsible for their delivery. This potential
conflict of interest A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial or otherwise, and serving one interest could involve working against another. Typically, this relates to situations i ...
raises strong grounds for Marshall to have recused himself from the case. In hindsight, the fact that Marshall did not recuse himself from ''Marbury'' is likely indicative of his eagerness to hear the case and use it to establish judicial review.


Legacy

''Marbury v. Madison'' is regarded as the single most important decision in American constitutional law. It established U.S. federal judges' authority to review the constitutionality of Congress's legislative acts, and to this day the Supreme Court's power to review the constitutionality of American laws at both the federal and state level "is generally rested upon the epic decision of ''Marbury v. Madison''." Although the Court's opinion in ''Marbury'' established judicial review in American federal law, it did not invent or create it. Some 18th-century British jurists had argued that English courts had the power to circumscribe
Parliament In modern politics, and history, a parliament is a legislative body of government. Generally, a modern parliament has three functions: representing the electorate, making laws, and overseeing the government via hearings and inquiries. Th ...
. The idea became widely accepted in Colonial Americaespecially in Marshall's native Virginiaunder the rationale that in America only the people were sovereign, rather than the government, and so the courts should only implement legitimate laws. By the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, American courts' "independent power and duty to interpret the law" was well established, and Hamilton had defended the concept in ''Federalist No. 78''. Nevertheless, Marshall's opinion in ''Marbury'' was the power's first announcement and exercise by the Supreme Court. It made the practice more routine, rather than exceptional, and prepared the way for the Court's opinion in the 1819 case '' McCulloch v. Maryland'', in which Marshall implied that the Supreme Court was the supreme interpreter of the U.S. Constitution. ''Marbury'' also established that the power of judicial review covers actions by the executive branch—the President and his cabinet members. However, American courts' power of judicial review over executive branch actions only extends to matters in which the executive has a legal duty to act or refrain from acting, and does not extend to matters that are entirely within the President's discretion, such as whether to veto a bill or whom to appoint to an office. This power has been the basis of many subsequent important Supreme Court decisions in American history, such as the 1974 decision ''
United States v. Nixon ''United States v. Nixon'', 418 U.S. 683 (1974), was a List of landmark court decisions in the United States, landmark Supreme Court of the United States, United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a unanimous decision against President ...
'', in which the Court held that President
Richard Nixon Richard Milhous Nixon (January 9, 1913April 22, 1994) was the 37th president of the United States, serving from 1969 to 1974. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as a representative and senator from California and was ...
had to comply with a
subpoena A subpoena (; also subpœna, supenna or subpena) or witness summons is a writ issued by a government agency, most often a court, to compel testimony by a witness or production of evidence under a penalty for failure. There are two common types of ...
to provide tapes of his conversations for use in a criminal trial related to the
Watergate scandal The Watergate scandal was a major political scandal in the United States involving the administration of President Richard Nixon from 1972 to 1974 that led to Nixon's resignation. The scandal stemmed from the Nixon administration's contin ...
, and which ultimately led to Nixon's resignation. Although it is a potent check on the other branches of the U.S. government, federal courts rarely exercised the power of judicial review in early American history. After deciding ''Marbury'' in 1803, the Supreme Court did not strike down another federal law until 1857, when the Court struck down the
Missouri Compromise The Missouri Compromise was a federal legislation of the United States that balanced desires of northern states to prevent expansion of slavery in the country with those of southern states to expand it. It admitted Missouri as a Slave states an ...
in its now-infamous decision ''
Dred Scott v. Sandford ''Dred Scott v. Sandford'', 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that held the U.S. Constitution did not extend American citizenship to people of black African descent, enslaved or free; th ...
'', a ruling that contributed to the outbreak of the
American Civil War The American Civil War (April 12, 1861 – May 26, 1865; also known by Names of the American Civil War, other names) was a civil war in the United States. It was fought between the Union (American Civil War), Union ("the North") and t ...
.


See also

*'' Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth'' * '' Calder v. Bull'' * '' Hylton v. United States'' * ''
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee ''Martin v. Hunter's Lessee'', 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States decided on March 20, 1816. It was the first case to assert ultimate Supreme Court authority over state courts in civil ...
''


References


Notes


Citations


Works cited

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Further reading

* (one introduction to the case) * (Claims that it is a mistake to read the case as claiming a judicial power to tell the President or Congress what they can or cannot do under the Constitution.) * * * James M. O'Fallon, ''The Case of Benjamin More: A Lost Episode in the Struggle over Repeal of the 1801 Judiciary Act'', 11 43 (1993). * * *


External links

*
Primary Documents in American History: ''Marbury v. Madison''
from the
Library of Congress The Library of Congress (LOC) is the research library that officially serves the United States Congress and is the ''de facto'' national library of the United States. It is the oldest federal cultural institution in the country. The libra ...

"John Marshall, ''Marbury v. Madison'', and Judicial Review—How the Court Became Supreme"
Lesson plan for grades 9–12 from
National Endowment for the Humanities The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) is an independent federal agency of the U.S. government, established by thNational Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965(), dedicated to supporting research, education, preserv ...

The 200th Anniversary of ''Marbury v. Madison'': The Reasons We Should Still Care About the Decision, and The Lingering Questions It Left Behind



The 200th Anniversary of ''Marbury v. Madison'': The Supreme Court's First Great Case


*
"Supreme Court Landmark Case ''Marbury v. Madison''"
from
C-SPAN Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network (C-SPAN ) is an American cable and satellite television network that was created in 1979 by the cable television industry as a nonprofit public service. It televises many proceedings of the United States ...
's '' Landmark Cases: Historic Supreme Court Decisions'' * {{DEFAULTSORT:Marbury V. Madison 1803 in United States case law 6th United States Congress 19th-century American trials Legal history of the District of Columbia Presidency of Thomas Jefferson United States Constitution Article Three case law United States constitutional case law United States political question doctrine case law United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court original jurisdiction cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Marshall Court