Marbury v. Madison
5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)
Author: Lindsey

Rule:  Established right to judicial review.  Congress may neither restrict nor enlarge the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.

Relevant Law

U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2 Clause 2

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases [within the judicial power of the United States], the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Judiciary Act of 1789, § 13

"The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states, in the cases herein after provided for; and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts...and writs of mandamus...to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States."

Facts

Before leaving office, Adams, a Federalist, appointed a bunch of Federalist judges.  Although the commissions were signed by Adams, some of the justice-of-the-peace nominations (including Marbury’s) were left undelivered when Jefferson took office the next day.  Jefferson, a Republican, refused to deliver Adam’s commissions.  Marbury sued to order by writ of mandamus that his commission be delivered.

Issues

1.      Does P have a right to the commission?

2.      If P has a right, and that right has been violated, does the law afford him a remedy?

3.      Is P entitled to the writ for which he applies? 

a.       This depends on:

                                                               i.      The nature of the writ applied for

                                                             ii.      The power of the Supreme Court

1.      The Judiciary Act gives the SC the right to issue a mandamus, but this is outside the scope of the Constitution.  So, does Article III give an exhaustive list for original jurisdiction or can Congress add to it?

b.      Note, if Marshall decided this question first (the question of whether the court has jurisdiction), the answer would be no and that would be the end of it.  But he doesn’t decide this question first because then he wouldn’t be able to go on to talk about judicial review

4.      What is the duty of the court when the Constitution and the law are in conflict?

Holding

1. Yes, P has a right to the commission.

a.       The commission was signed by the President and the law gives the officer a right to hold office for five years.  The appointment, as a matter of law, is not revocable.

b.      BUT, the promise with this argument is that with personal property, you don’t actually have a right to it until it’s delivered to you.

c.       Note that there’s a question as to whether he’s guaranteed to hold the position for five years.  He could just be appointed for up to five years, in which case the President has the option to fire him after he’s appointed.

2. Yes, he has a right to recover damages.
3. 1. There was a duty assigned by law (to deliver the commission) and that duty was not performed.  Therefore, the person whose rights were violated by the omission has the right to seek relief with the courts.
4. No, P is not entitled to the writ because the case is beyond the court’s jurisdiction.
5. 1. The Judiciary Act gives the Courts the right to issues writs of mandamus but this Act gives powers outside the scope originally assigned in Article III of the Constitution

                                                               i.      Actually, the Judiciary Act doesn’t say specifically that it’s giving original jurisdiction.  It only says you can issue writs of mandamus.  And since this is in the same sentence as the mention of appellate jurisdiction (there’s a semicolon between them), the Act might mean that the Court is allowed to use writs of mandamus in cases of appellate jurisdiction. This reading makes a lot more sense because it means that Congress is not expanding SC’s original jurisdiction and thus the Act would still be constitutional.  (of course, Marbury would have to refile in a lower court and appeal to the SC for a writ of mandamus).  

                                                           ii.      When given the choice between interpreting it as constitutional and an interpretation that is unconstitutional, he interprets the latter because it allows him to establish judicial review. 

                                                         iii.      This is strange- you think he would be eager to interpret it in the easiest way possible.  But there are political ramifications for Marshall–he’d have to tell Jefferson what to do and Jefferson has already said he won’t enforce it.  This would be a very bad precedent. 

3. 2. So the question to be decided is if Article III’s original jurisdiction list is exhaustive, or is Congress allowed to add to that list to give the Court further power?                                                               i.      Irreducible minimum theory:  Article III §2 says that the SC should have original jurisdiction in these specific cases, and “in all other cases” they should have appellate jurisdiction.  But this doesn’t necessarily mean that the Congress can’t add on to what’s listed.    (i.e., “do the dishes” doesn’t imply “don’t do the laundry” but “if you do nothing else, make sure you do the dishes.”) 

                                                             ii.      If Article III's original jurisdiction is an exhaustive list, but Congress tries to modify it anyway, who wins that conflict, Congress or the Constitution? And, more importantly, who is supposed to decide who wins? In his answer to this last question, Marshall creates the notion of judicial review of congressional statutes.

1.      The duty of the court is to decide whether a law acts within the bounds of the Constitution.  If both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, the court must determine whether the law or the constitution should be upheld, therefore granting the court judicial review.

Ultimate ruling:  Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. Congress can not pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the federal courts to interpret what the Constitution permits.

Reasoning

Reasons why a law repugnant to the Constitution is invalid:

1. Supremacy Clause: Art VI § 2 – law of the land is “Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof.”  Marshall interprets “pursuance thereof” as meaning “law not repugnant to the Constitution”.  
2. 1. A more modest interpretation would be “in the manner (process) set forth by the Constitution.” 
3. Written document:  there’s a reason why framers chose to write certain provisions.  Why would they write restrictions on their jurisdiction if they meant that it could be enlarged?
4. Either paramount or ordinary: Either the Constitution is paramount in that it overrules any law repugnant to it or it is ordinary in that it can be overruled by any legislative act
5. 1. It doesn’t have to be either one or the other.  The middle ground is that the constitution stands until it is amended.
6. Purpose: what’s the purpose of our written constitution other than to have a set of laws to be followed
7. 1. Just because its written doesn’t mean it strikes down inconsistent provisions.  There are situations in Canada (not withstanding clause) and Great Britain (Magna Carta) where written documents do not necessarily strike down inconsistent arguments.

Judgment

Judiciary Act (aka the Circuit Court Act) is repealed.