Why did the Marbury v Madison trial take place?

Answer 1

In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress had assigned the US Supreme Court responsibility for petitions of writs of mandamus (a judial order compelling an official to take, or refrain from taking, an action under his or her scope of responsibility), which meant the Court had to hear the case under original jurisdiction (as a trial court). That gave them less latitude for denying Marbury's application, since, by law, the Supreme Court would have been the point of entry into the federal judiciary, and Marbury had a legitimate grievance.

Agreeing to hear the case also gave the Court an opportunity to declare Section 13 of the Judiciary Act unconstitutional, because Congress had overreached its authority by assigning the Court original jurisdiction over something not specifically prescribed by the Constitution. This validated the Court's right of judicial review (the ability to analyze laws in terms of adherence to the Constitution, and nullify legislation that doesn't conform), thus strengthening the Judicial branch and making it more equal to the other two branches of government.

Answer 2

Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 required the Supreme Court to consider Marbury's request for a writ of mandamus. Marshall, rather than simply issuing a court order that would likely be ignored, chose to hold a trial to determine whether Marbury was entitled to the commission, and whether the Court had jurisdiction to obtain it for him. This may have been a deliberate political strategy calculated to strengthen the power of the Judicial branch, which was seen as weak and insignificant relative to the other two branches of government.

Explanation

William Marbury, and several other plaintiffs whose justice of the peace commissions had been withheld, filed suit in the US Supreme Court asking for a writ of mandamus compelling Secretary of State James Madison to deliver their paperwork.

The case was filed in the Supreme Court rather than the lower court because Congress had extended to the Supreme Court the right to issue writs of mandamus against federal government officials under original jurisdiction in Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Court was required to hear the case due to this stipulation.

Marbury was a wealthy Federalist, and most likely motivated by partisan politics rather than any great desire to serve in the office of JP. The Federalists' intent was probably to publicize Jefferson's decision to withhold some of the commissions, and to embarrass him.

Marshall decided to hold a trial, rather than issue the court order, to determine whether Marbury was entitled to the condition, whether the Courts could remedy the situation, and whether the US Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear the case. This provided Marshall an opportunity to publicly admonish Jefferson for his action, while relieving the Supreme Court of the obligation to challenge the President directly.

Marshall suspected Madison would ignore any order to deliver the documents, a move that would weaken the Judicial branch relative to the rest of government. Instead, Marshall decided the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to Madison because Congress had exceeded its constitutional power by attempting to extend the Court's original jurisdiction, and declared Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. Marshall knew Jefferson was unlikely to fight the decision because it supported the President's intention, while simultaneously establishing a precedent that strengthened the power of the Judicial branch by exercising judicial review without opposition.

It appears the trial was a legal vehicle for enhancing the political power of the Supreme Court.

Case Citation:

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)