Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review

---

Marbury v. Madison arose from a partisan transition of power, but it became a permanent statement about the supremacy of the Constitution. Decided in 1803 by Chief Justice John Marshall, the case held that the Supreme Court could not exercise jurisdiction granted by a statute that conflicted with the Constitution. In doing so, the Court set out the classic American doctrine of judicial review.

The midnight appointments dispute

In the closing hours of John Adams's presidency, the outgoing administration filled a number of judicial and quasi-judicial offices under the Judiciary Act of 1801. William Marbury was appointed a justice of the peace for the District of Columbia, but his commission was not delivered before Thomas Jefferson took office. Jefferson ordered Secretary of State James Madison to withhold it, and Marbury sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court.

Marshall's careful opinion

Marshall held that Marbury had a right to the commission and that a legal remedy normally existed when a right was violated. The crucial question was whether the Supreme Court could issue the writ under its original jurisdiction. Marshall concluded that the relevant portion of Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 extended the Court's original jurisdiction beyond the bounds set by Article III and was therefore void.

Why the decision was so skillful

The opinion denied Marbury the remedy he wanted, so the Jefferson administration did not have to obey an order it might have ignored. At the same time, Marshall asserted the judiciary's authority to interpret the Constitution and refuse effect to conflicting legislation. This combination allowed the Court to avoid immediate humiliation while strengthening its long-term constitutional role.

The constitutional principle at stake

Marbury did not make the judiciary supreme over the Constitution; it made the Constitution supreme over ordinary legislation. Judicial review followed from the logic of written constitutionalism, because judges deciding cases had to choose the higher law when the two were in conflict. The case thus reinforced separation of powers by giving courts a defined role in preserving the constitutional order.

Why Marbury still matters

Americans continue to debate how judges should exercise judicial review, but the basic principle announced in Marbury remains foundational. A written Constitution would be little more than advice if courts were obliged to enforce statutes that plainly violated it. The case still matters because it made clear that constitutional government requires institutions willing to treat the people's fundamental law as binding on every branch of government.