Marbury Vs. Madison: The Most Important Supreme Court Cases

In the year 1803 the case of Marbury v. Madison was brought before the Supreme Court in order to address the issue of William Marbury’s appointment as federal circuit judge. This created a unique and complex challenge for the Supreme Court of the time because they were operating under no legal precedent, which meant that they had no prior cases to reference to reach a ruling. The issue came to a head after the Judiciary Act of 1801 allowed for President John Adams to appoint sixteen new circuit judges one of them being William Marbury. However, before Secretary of State Marshall ran out of time before he was able to deliver Marbury’s appointment. When the new Secretary of State James Madison entered office, he refused to deliver Marbury’s appointment, claiming that it was too late. Outraged, Marbury filed a writ of mandamus against Madison in order to force him to complete the specified action, which in this case was to deliver the commission. However, through complex political maneuvering the Judiciary Act of 1802, was enacted which repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801 reestablishing the Judiciary Act of 1789 and postponing the case until 1803. One of the key issues in the case was then if William Marbury was entitled to a remedy for the deprivation of his right to his commission. Chief Justice John Marshall with a narrow and technical ruling then determined that since President Adams with his signature had completed Marbury’s commission of appointment he was entitled to the

John Marshall was the Secretary of State for President Adams. It was his job to deliver these commissions to the new appointees. Many of them were delivered, but some were not, including, William Marbury's. When the new President, Thomas Jefferson, was sworn in, he told the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to not deliver the commissions to the other judge appointees. Marbury and several others brought

Initially, one principle that John Marshall established that set legal precedents and formed the cornerstone of government and economics was the judicial authority. In 1803, the Supreme Court led by John Marshall decided the landmark case of William Marbury versus James Madison, who was secretary of state and confirmed the principle of

The USSC held that even though William Marbury (P) was entitled to a remedy, Congress did not have the authority to expand the USSC original jurisdiction outlined in Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 expanding

As a Federalist, Adams tried to remain Federalists in the government offices in order for Federalists to take advantages of political issues. Judiciary Act of 1801 is one of the Adams last struggles during his administration. He appointed Federalists judges which came to be known as the midnight judges and tried to keep them in the Court (The American Pageant, Pg.218). Therefore, in the case of a trial between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans, the Federalists were able to stand over the Republicans. However, the establishment of judicial review prevented political parties from passing these unreasonable acts planned for their own

Marbury's case was unconstitutional because the Supreme Court didn't have the original jurisdiction over the case. This means the Supreme Court couldn't give Marbury his writ of mandamus even if they wanted to. The Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction when it deals with Ambassadors, public ministers, and other consuls.

If Marshall’s actions were iconic, then after the Marbury v. Madison case, he would have been credited with the creation of judicial review. In reality, Marshall’s decision of allowing the courts to review the decisions of the legislative and executive branches was seen “as only a step in the continuous clarification of the theory of judicial function”(Clinton 117). So this supposed creator of a pivotal Judicial component was only seen as a stepping stone. Through the remainder of Marshall’s career as Chief Justice, no one revisited his thoughts on the Marbury v. Madison case, until his successor, Roger Taney, did in Dred Scott v. Sanford. Roger Taney seemed to have the same viewpoints as Marshall, always trying to keep the checks and balances intact and equal. He kept this dedication through the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, using judicial review to rule the Missouri Compromise of 1820 unconstitutional. Strangely, “Marbury’s importance as a precedent for judicial review of legislation was never mentioned by the Court”(Clinton 119). If Marbury v. Madison was such a pivotal case, then it would

The questions it raised were: Is Marbury entitled to the commission? Can Congress expand the power of the Supreme Court beyond what is stated in the Constitution? Does the Supreme Court have the power to issue writs of mandamus? Can the Supreme Court review acts of Congress and determine whether or not they are unconstitutional?

The case Marbury v. Madison occurred in 1803, in the District of Columbia. This case really began in the election of 1800, where Thomas Jefferson beat John Adams out of office. This election caused unrest for the Federalist and his associates, and in the last few days before the end of his presidency, he appointed multiple justices of peace for D.C. in order to fill the courts with Federalists to oppose the incoming administration. Their commissions were approved by the government, but Adams didn’t have the time to have them sent out before the end of his presidency. This meant it would become James Madison's, Jefferson’s Secretary of State, responsibility to deliver them, but Jefferson ordered him not to. Soon after catching word that William Marbury, one of the chosen justices, would not be receiving his commission, he spoke out to the Supreme Court and petitioned for a writ of mandamus, which is a legal order, that would basically force Madison to give an explanation as to why he would not be receiving his commission.

When Jefferson assumed his presidency as the first republican president, he knew Adams nomination of 58 justices was a last resort to retain federalist power throughout the government. Although, to Jefferson’s liking, the justices were not delivered before he became

Marbury v. Madison, which established the power of judicial review for the Supreme Court, changed the course of American history. This power to review legislation that congress has passed and possibly deem it unconstitutional has had a profound impact on American society. This power provides a check on the Legislative branch, but it also lends itself to an important debate over when the Court can and should use this power. Should the court use this power to increase the power of the national government, something many call judicial activism? Or should this power be used to curtail national legislative power and increase the liberties given to individuals? During the period around the Great Depression, the court dealt with many economic

The case Marbury vs. Madison led to the most important decision the US Supreme Court has ever made. The parties, William Marbury, appointed Justice of Peace under the Judiciary Act of 1801 by John Adams the former US president, and James Madison, Thomas Jefferson’s Secretary of State at the time, had conflicting interests concerning William Marbury’s right to office. Madison refused to grant Marbury his appointment. This led to Marbury ordering the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus, obliging Marbury to grant his commission. Marbury’s main argument was that the Judiciary Act of 1789 granted the power to issue former to the Supreme Court. By refusing the appointment, Marbury claims, is Madison violating his legal rights to obtain the commission. The Court’s ruling in this case, delivered by Mr. Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803, had an important impact on the establishment of judicial review. But was the Court’s decision justified?

Marbury vs. Madison established two facts in American politics and jurisprudence; that the judiciary was not a lofty, isolated branch of the Government as was envisioned by the Fathers and that the powers of the Judiciary implicated a far greater reach from the bench than was expected, or perhaps as was intentioned. It established Judicial Review, not only as a tool in the arm of the Judicial Branch but it in effect, redistributed certain powers of legislative prerogative to the Courts. This event essentially divided the Courts into two dichotomous schools of jurisprudence; judicial restraint and activism. Those who claim that the Supreme Court has the mandate and authority to, in effect, legislate are called activists. Conversely, those who

Marbury vs. Madison was a court case in which the principle of judicial review was established and the Supreme Court reinstated their supreme interpretation of the Constitution by putting Jackson back in his place. Jackson seemed to have forgotten this because he deemed the bank unconstitutional and vetoed

The judicial branch, in its conception as outlined in Article III of the constitution was designated the “power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases (The White House)”. However, since the ratification of the constitution, much like the other two branches of government, the judicial branch has also experienced an expanded delegation of authority and power. This notion is evidenced in the 1803 decision on the case of Marbury v. Madison where the Supreme Court asserted its power of judicial review by ”blocking last-minute appointments by outgoing President John Adams (Chegg)” by declaring that these actions should not be permitted because the supreme court, under chief justice john Marshall declared them unconstitutional(Cornell). This set forth a very powerful precedent for judicial review, one that continues to play a critical role in political discourse today. Although the evolution of the judiciary commenced following the fallout of the 1803 decision, the courts have delegated to themselves a controversial role as policy-makers in response to societal demands and stresses placed upon the political system specifically during and after the civil rights movement that occurred in the United States during the 20th century. This expanded role into the realm of actual policy making is derived from the belief that the constitution is indeed a living and flexible document that must retain the capability for change. As the