Decision Marbury v. Madison

an engraving of justice marshall made charles-balthazar-julien fevret de saint-mémin in 1808.



draft of motion rule marbury v. madison



draft of motion rule marbury v. madison, page 2

on february 24, 1803, court rendered unanimous (4–0) decision, marbury had right commission court did not have power force madison deliver commission. chief justice marshall wrote opinion of court. marshall presented case raising 3 distinct questions:

did marbury have right commission?
do laws of country give marbury legal remedy?
is asking supreme court writ of mandamus correct legal remedy?

marshall answered first 2 questions affirmatively. found failure deliver commission violative of vested legal right .

in deciding whether marbury had remedy, marshall stated: government of united states has been emphatically termed government of laws, , not of men. cease deserve high appellation if laws furnish no remedy violation of vested legal right. 1 of key legal principles on marbury relies notion every violation of vested legal right, there must legal remedy. marshall next described 2 distinct types of executive actions: political actions, official can exercise discretion, , purely ministerial functions, official legally required something. marshall found delivering appointment marbury purely ministerial function required law, , therefore law provided him remedy.

a federal court has special obligation satisfy not of own jurisdiction, of lower courts in cause under review. if court not have power hear case, not issue dicta. consequently, exceptions not applicable here, federal court must decide whether has jurisdiction before discussing merits of case. chief justice marshall, however, did not address jurisdictional issues until addressing first 2 questions presented above. because of canon of constitutional avoidance (i.e., statute can interpreted avoid constitutional issue, should interpreted), courts deal constitutional issues if necessary. in case, jurisdictional issue constitutional one.

in analyzing third question, marshall divided question further, asking if writ of mandamus correct means restore marbury right, , if so, whether writ marbury sought issue supreme court. concluding since writ of mandamus, definition, correct judicial means order official of united states (in case, secretary of state) required of him (in case, deliver commission), marshall devotes remainder of inquiry @ second part of question: whether [the writ] can issue court .

marshall first examined judiciary act of 1789 , determined act purported give supreme court original jurisdiction on writs of mandamus. marshall looked article iii of constitution, defines supreme court s original , appellate jurisdictions (see relevant law above). marbury had argued constitution intended set floor original jurisdiction congress add to. marshall disagreed , held congress not have power modify supreme court s original jurisdiction. consequently, marshall found constitution , judiciary act conflict.

this conflict raised important question of happens when act of congress conflicts constitution. marshall answered acts of congress conflict constitution not law , courts bound instead follow constitution, affirming principle of judicial review. in support of position marshall looked nature of written constitution—there no point of having written constitution if courts ignore it. purpose powers limited, , purpose limitation committed writing, if these limits may, @ time, passed intended restrained? marshall argued nature of judicial function requires courts make determination. since court s duty decide cases, courts have able decide law applies each case. therefore, if 2 laws conflict each other, court must decide law applies. finally, marshall pointed judge s oath requiring them uphold constitution, , supremacy clause of constitution, lists constitution before laws of united states . part of core of reasoning found in following statements decision:

it emphatically province , duty of judicial department [the judicial branch] law is. apply rule particular cases must, of necessity, expound , interpret rule. if 2 laws conflict each other, courts must decide on operation of each.

so, if law [e.g., statute or treaty] in opposition constitution, if both law , constitution apply particular case, court must either decide case conformably law, disregarding constitution, or conformably constitution, disregarding law, court must determine of these conflicting rules governs case. of essence of judicial duty. if, then, courts regard constitution, , constitution superior ordinary act of legislature, constitution, , not such ordinary act, must govern case both apply.

those, then, controvert principle constitution considered in court paramount law reduced necessity of maintaining courts must close eyes on constitution, , see law [e.g., statute or treaty].

this doctrine subvert foundation of written constitutions.

in denying request, court held lacked jurisdiction because section 13 of judiciary act passed congress in 1789, authorized court issue such writ, unconstitutional , invalid.