0
How could a writ of mandamus force Madison to comply with the order in the case of Marbury v. Madison?
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)
A writ of mandamus is a court order compelling an official to take action - or refrain from taking action - on something within his or her scope of responsibility. In Marbury v. Madison, (1803), William Marbury sought a judgment from the Supreme Court forcing the Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver a justice of the peace commission former President Adams had awarded Marbury immediately leaving office. Delivery was to be arranged by the Secretary of State's office, which, ironically, had been under (Chief Justice) John Marshall's control at the time the commission was signed. Due to time constraints, the task fell to the incoming Jefferson administration, which refused to execute Adams' orders.
One of the problems Chief Justice Marshall faced in handling the Marbury case was the potential that Madison would refuse to comply with a writ of mandamus, leaving the Court powerless to enforce its order. This was a reasonable concern, as Marshall had already issued a preliminary request for Madison to show cause why the Court should not issue a writ of mandamus (a standard procedure), which Madison ignored.
If the Court was unable to move the Secretary of State, the Judicial branch would be seen as weaker than either the Executive and Legislative branches, which could render it ineffectual.
Marshall knew Marbury represented a power struggle between Adams' Federalist party, which was deeply entrenched in the judiciary but losing political power in other parts of government, and Jefferson's Democratic-Republican party, which had just assumed control of the White House and Congress.
William Marbury was a wealthy businessman, a banker, who had no real need (or probably desire) to hold the position for which he sued. The Federalists may have expected Marshall, who was also a Federalist, to side with them and strengthen the party's grip on the judiciary. Jefferson may have expected Marshall to issue an order he couldn't enforce, which would have undermined the Federalist party.
Marshall was less concerned with partisan politics than with ensuring the Supreme Court operated as a powerful and independent branch of government. The Chief Justice negotiated a middle course that gave each side a partial victory while discouraging both parties from using the Court as a pawn.
In the Opinion of the Court, Marbury was entitled to his commission because it had been properly approved, signed and sealed by President Adams; however, the Court lacked jurisdiction to order Madison deliver the commission. The case would have to be addressed in a lower court first, then appealed if necessary (Marbury never pursued this step).
According to Marshall, Congress had overstepped its constitutional authority in the Judiciary Act of 1789 by granting the Supreme Court power to issue all writs of mandamus, in contradiction to the specific areas of original jurisdiction granted in Article III. The decision declared Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional and rendered it null and void.
Marbury v. Madison, (1803), is often cited as the landmark case that affirmed the Supreme Court's right of judicial review.
For more information on Marbury v. Madison, see Related Links, below.
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Ezra
Ross
CoachAdd your answer:
Earn +20 pts
In Marbury v. Madison who was Chief Justice John Marshall likely to agree with why?
The Federalists apparently hoped Marshall would side with Marbury, because Marshall, a Federalist, was the Secretary of State under John Adams, and was responsible for delivering Marbury's commission, which was withheld after the change of administration.In reading the opinion, it appears the Court's decision was based on an ethical and intellectual assessment of law and the Constitution, and did not show personal bias toward the Plaintiff (or against the Defendant).Marshall and Jefferson were distant cousins, and had never gotten along. Historians report the Court's decision angered Jefferson, which probably didn't bother Marshall, but was unlikely to have significantly influenced the ruling (although Marshall did take the Executive branch to task in his written opinion).Case Citation:Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)
Did Marbury win because Chief Justice John Marshall was on his side?
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)No. First, Marbury didn't really win the case. Chief Justice Marshall delivered a long lecture to President Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans, but the actual decision was that the Supreme Court didn't have jurisdiction (authority) to hear the case. This gave each side a partial victory.Marbury was vindicated because John Marshall stated he was entitled to the justice of the peace position to which John Adams appointed him, but that Marbury would have to refile his grievance in a lower court. Madison and Jefferson also had a partial victory, because they weren't ordered to deliver Marbury's commission, a decision that could have resulted in an open power struggle between the Executive and Judicial branches, and between the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties.Marshall wisely concluded that the Judicial branch would be weakened if Madison ignored a ruling against him. Instead, Marshall used the rule of law to declare Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. In Section 13, Congress had bestowed on the US Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus (a court order compelling an official to take a legal action) against federal government officials under original jurisdiction (as a trial court). Marshall argued Congress had improperly attempted to change the Constitution and nullified that part of the Act. This clearly affirmed the Supreme Court's role as interpreter of the Constitution, and established the Chief Justice's intention to place a check on the power of Congress through judicial review (of laws).Marbury never refiled his case in the lower court, demonstrating the conflict was political and had served its purpose. The Judicial branch, and the Supreme Court as head of the judicial branch, were the real winners in the case.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
What events led to the Marbury v. Madison case?
Marbury v. Madison, (1803), was the result of a political struggle between the Federalist party, represented by President John Adams, and the Democratic-Republican party, represented by Adams' successor, Thomas Jefferson.Federalist John Adams was badly defeated in the 1800 Presidential election by Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican. The Vice-President, Aaron Burr, was also a Democratic-Republican, as were many new members of Congress. Adams recognized the Federalists were losing power to a party with radically different ideologies.Congress passed two pieces of legislation in the waning days of Adams presidency: the Judiciary Act of 1801, and the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801. The Judiciary Act was signed into law on February 13, 1801, just three weeks before the end of his administration. The Act expanded the federal court system, allowing Adams to quickly appoint 16 members of his political party to newly created judgeships, thus allowing the Federalists to retain some influence over the direction of government. The new legislation also reduced the number of Supreme Court justices by one (by attrition) to prevent Jefferson from gaining control over the head of the Judicial branch. Adams drew much criticism for "court packing," but was acting within his rights as President.The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801 was passed just days before Adams' term of office ended. In the Organic Act, Congress formally incorporated landed ceded to the federal government by Virginia and Maryland into the District of Columbia, dividing the territory into two "cities": Alexandria, which operated under Virginia law; and Georgetown, which operated under Maryland law. One of the provisions of the Act was that the President could appoint an unspecified number of justices of the peace, as he saw fit, to handle low-level legal business for the District. President Adams nominated 42 Federalists as justices of the peace on March 2, 1801, two days before he left office. Congress approved the commissions on March 3. These men later became known as the "Midnight Judges" for their last-minute appointments.William Marbury was one of those selected to be a justice of the peace. John Marshall, who was Secretary of State under Adams (as well as the newly appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), worked late into the night recording and sealing the commissions so they could be delivered the next day. He was forced to leave the delivery to his successor, James Madison.Madison didn't arrive in Washington immediately. President Thomas Jefferson walked into Madison's vacant office, found the 42 commissions on Madison's desk, and decided the number was excessive. He eliminated 12 positions, reducing the total to 30, then reassigned five of the slots to members of the Democratic-Republican party. He allowed the remaining 25 to be delivered as intended.William Marbury and three others were among those whose commissions were eliminated. In December of 1801, they filed a petition for a Writ of Mandamus with the US Supreme Court. A writ of mandamus is a court order commanding an official, business, or government agency to perform an act within its scope of responsibility. In this case, Marbury wanted to force the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver his commission.Case Citation:Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)For more information about Marbury v. Madison, see Related Questions, below.
The Hartford Convention never delivered its grievances to President Madison because?
they could not vote on a set list of grievances
Were there any witnesses involved in Marbury v. Madison?
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)Yes. Plaintiffs' (Marbury, et al.) attorney, Charles Lee, subpoenaed Jacob Wagner and Daniel Brent, Clerks of the US Department of State. They testified that they were unsure as to which commissions were signed and sealed.Lee also subpoenaed Jefferson's Attorney General, Levi Lincoln, who had been acting Secretary of State for a few days before Madison took office. Lincoln, not Madison, had been in office at the time the justice of the peace commissions disappeared.Lincoln objected to testifying on the constitutional grounds of Executive Privilege and Fifth Amendment protection, but Marshall assured him he wouldn't have to reveal anything confidential or self-incriminating. Lincoln asked for a set of written questions, which he took home to consider overnight.The next day, Lincoln took the stand and responded to limited interrogatory about the status of the missing commissions. Lincoln claimed he did not know whether Madison had ever taken possession of the paperwork, and did not know what had become of it. He acknowledged having seen signed and sealed appointments, but could not recall whether the plaintiffs' names were among them, and did not know, but did not believe, they had been delivered.James Markham Marshall, Chief Justice Marshall's brother, submitted an affidavit through attorney Lee claiming he had taken approximately twelve commissions on March 4, 1801, with the intention of delivering them, but was told riots had broken out in an area to which he was traveling and returned an unknown number to the Secretary of State's office. James claimed to have a signed receipt for the returned papers, but none was produced in court. James Marshall's affidavit was read into the record; he did not give direct testimony.There is no evidence James Marshall had been at the State Department on March 4, but Jefferson refused to provide counsel for Madison's defense (the Executive branch ignored the case), so the issue was unexplored; however, historians question the veracity of the younger Marshall's claims.There were no witnesses for the defense.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
