How did Chief Justice Marshall deal with the problem created by James Madison's inaction in Marbury v. Madison?

Answer 1

Marshall declared Section 13 of the The Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, claiming Congress had attempted to extend the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to include issuing writs of mandamus for all government officials, a power Marshall said was not specifically included in Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution. As a result, the Court ruled it did not have proper jurisdiction to hear Marbury's case, except on appeal, and that Marbury would have to first file for relief in a lower federal court.

Explanation

Federalist President John Adams appointed 42 members of his own party to justice of the peace positions for Washington, DC, in the waning hours of his administration (these men later became known as the "Midnight Judges" for their last-minute appointment). The incoming President, Thomas Jefferson, leader of the anti-Federalist Democratic-Republican party, saw this, and some of Adams' other last-minute actions, as an attempt to help the Federalist party maintain control of the Judicial branch of government. In response, Jefferson reduced the number of appointments from 42 to 30, then appointed five members of the Democratic-Republican party to some of the remaining seats.

William Marbury was among those whose commissions were withheld. He and several other Federalists petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus (a court order compelling an official to take a specific legal action). Chief Justice Marshall sent a preliminary order to Jefferson's new Secretary of State, James Madison, to "show cause" why the Supreme Court should not issue the writ of mandamus requiring Madison to provide the plaintiffs with their justice of the peace commissions. Madison ignored Marshall's order.

Meanwhile, Congress repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801, legislation that had reorganized the federal court system, added 16 circuit judges (again, all Federalist appointments) reduced the members of the Supreme Court from six to five (by attrition), and changed the months of the Court's Term. The net effect was a temporary return to the Judiciary Act of 1789, followed by another set of changes determined by the Repeal Act of 1802, that prevented the Supreme Court from holding sessions in 1802.

As Marshall probably suspected, this represented a power struggle between the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans, as well as between the Executive and Judicial branches of government. Madison's refusal to respond to Marshall's show cause order raised a reasonable concern that he would also ignore any writ of mandamus Marshall might issue. This would weaken the judicial branch relative to the other branches of government, rather than elevate it to a co-equal position of power, as Marshall intended.

In order to circumvent the problem, Marshall declared Section 13 of the The Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional claiming Congress had attempted to extend the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to include issuing writs of mandamus for all government officials, a power Marshall stated was not specifically included in Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution. [A comparison between Marbury and many of Marshall's later decisions tends to indicate this was more a rationalized political strategy than his true belief. Marbury is one of the only cases in which Marshall employs a textualist interpretation of the Constitution.]

As a result, the Court ruled it couldn't hear the case because it lacked original jurisdiction over the matter, and that Marbury would first have to seek relief in a lower federal court. Marbury never refiled.

Case Citation:

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)

For more information on Marbury v. Madison, see Related Questions, below.