How did Chief Justice John Marshall justify his decision in Marbury v. Madison?

Answer 1

The rulings are related to the three questions posed to the Court:

1. Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands?

   The Court determined that Marbury had a right to his commission, per An Act Concerning the District of Columbia that Congress passed in 1801, as well as Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, which granted the President the right to make judicial nominations. Marbury's nomination had already been approved by the Senate, then signed an sealed by the former President, making it official.

2. If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?

   Because the answer to the first question was that Marbury was properly appointed as a justice of the peace, his legal rights had been violated when Madison withheld the paperwork necessary to assume office.

   Further, the laws of the United States afforded Marbury a remedy to this violation.

3. If they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing from this court?

   The Supreme Court determined it did not have original jurisdiction over the case, but appellate, and therefore could not issue a writ of mandamus. Marbury had to initiate legal action against Madison in the lower federal courts before the Supreme Court could review his case.

   This decision was based on the Court's determination that the Judiciary Act of 1789, in which Congress delegated to the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over cases involving the federal government, was partially unconstitutional because it granted the Court powers not specified by the Constitution.

   Part 3 of the Marbury decision established the high court's right of judicial review over legislation passed by Congress and the President, as well as the power to overturn laws deemed to be unconstitutional.

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 was legally entitled to his commission, but that the court lacked jurisdictional authority to issue the 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.

This decision set an important precedent: The Supreme Court formally affirmed that the Judicial Branch had the authority of judicial review - that is, the federal courts were empowered to review laws relevant to cases before them to determine their constitutionality, and nullify any laws they found unconstitutional.

Although the Ellsworth Court had established the supremacy of the US Constitution over state laws in Ware v. Hylton,(1796), Marbury represented the first time the Supreme Court declared an act of the US Congress unconstitutional.

Case Citation:

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)

Answer 2

The Court through Chief Justice Marshall unanimously decided not to require Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury.