Overview

Marbury v. Madison is a foundational United States Supreme Court decision from 1803. Brought by William Marbury against Secretary of State James Madison, the case arose from undelivered judicial commissions issued at the end of the Adams administration. The Court's opinion, written by Chief Justice John Marshall, articulated the doctrine that makes courts the final arbiters of constitutional meaning.

Background

In the final days of President John Adams's term, a number of commissions for federal appointments were signed but not delivered. When Thomas Jefferson took office, his Secretary of State, James Madison, declined to deliver some of those commissions. William Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to compel delivery. The dispute thus combined a personal grievance with a test of the Court's powers and limits.

Ruling and reasoning

The Court held that Marbury had a legal right to his commission but that the Supreme Court could not issue the writ in this case because the statute that purported to give the Court original jurisdiction to grant such relief was inconsistent with the Constitution. Chief Justice Marshall reasoned that the Constitution is the supreme law and that it is the duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, including the power to refuse to apply statutes that conflict with the Constitution.

Key holdings

  • The Court affirmed that an individual can have a judicially cognizable right to a commission.
  • The judiciary has authority to interpret the Constitution and to invalidate statutes that violate it.
  • A portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that expanded the Court's original jurisdiction was held unconstitutional.

Significance and legacy

Marbury v. Madison is widely cited as the case that established the principle of judicial review at the national level. It shaped the balance among the branches of the federal government and gave the Supreme Court a central role in constitutional interpretation. Over time, the decision has influenced how courts approach conflicts between statutes and constitutional provisions, and it remains a frequent reference in discussions of separation of powers.

Further reading and context

The case is often taught as part of introductory courses on American constitutional law and is discussed in broader studies of early republic politics. For an accessible summary and primary-source references, see Marbury v. Madison.