What conflict did Marshall see with the Judiciary Act of 1789 and Article III of the Constitution?

Answer 1

In Marbury v. Madison, (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall declared Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional under the theory that Congress had overreached its authority by extending the Court's original jurisdiction to include domestic (US) government officials, in violation of the language in Article III (see below).

Explanation

The Judiciary Act of 1789, which extended to the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over issuing writs of mandamus (a court order requiring an official to take - or refrain from taking - an action within his or her scope of authority). The Court declared that portion of the Act, Section 13, unconstitutional because the Constitution did not specify issuing writs of mandamus as one of the Supreme Court's areas of original jurisdiction. According to Marshall, Congress had overreached its authority by attempting to make the Court responsible for all writs of mandamus.

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court original (trial) jurisdiction over two classes of cases:

"[1] In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and [2] those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, 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."

Marshall decided ". . . affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls . . ." referred only to foreign officials on US soil. Since neither Marbury nor Madison fit the criteria as Marshall defined it under Article III, the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to issue the writ of mandamus.

Marshall assured Marbury the federal courts could appropriately address his grievance, but that he had to refile the case in a lower court. The Supreme Court only had appellate jurisdiction over the matter.

Some constitutional scholars argue Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution should be interpreted to include issuing writs of mandamus to government officials, ostensibly because James Madison could be considered a "public minister."

Marshall's decision was most likely a matter of political expediency. By declaring a small part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, he avoided a direct confrontation with President Jefferson over delivery of the commission.

The Supreme Court relies on the Executive Branch to enforce its decisions, which Jefferson would be unlikely to do under the circumstances. This would have weakened the perception of the Judicial Branch as a co-equal branch of government.

By using judicial review to declare a relatively small part of the Act unconstitutional (and therefore nullified), but logically assigning jurisdiction to the lower courts, he both affirmed the power of the judiciary and rendered a decision neither Congress nor the President could dispute without drawing more attention to the case.

Case Citation:

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)

For more information, see Related Questions, below.