AUSTRIA

Section1. Judicial Power and Judicial Function: Definition and scope

Marbury v. Madison

February 24, 1803

Marshall , J.
Petition: motion for mandamus

Facts:
The applicant and two others contended that the late President of the United States John Adams had
nominated them to the Senate and that the Senate had advised and consented to their appointments as
justices of the peace. Their commissions were signed by the late President and the seal of the United
States was affixed to the commissions by the Secretary of State. The commissions were withheld from
the applicants and they requested their delivery.
The Court granted a rule to show cause, requiring the Secretary to show cause why a
mandamus should not issue, directing him to deliver to William Marbury his commission as
justice of peace of the county of Washington, in the district of Columbia. No cause was shown
and the applicant filed a motion for a mandamus.

Issue/s:
1st. Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands? (whether the applicant is appointed in the
office)
when a commission has been signed by the President, the appointment is made; and that the commission is
complete, when the seal of the United States has been affixed to it by the Secretary of State
Mr. Marbury, then, since his commission was signed by the President, and sealed by the secretary of state, was
appointed; and as the law creating the office, gave the officer a right to hold for five years, independent of the
executive, the appointment was not revocable; but vested in the officer legal rights, which are protected by the
laws of his country
2dly. If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?
The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the
laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection.
the appointment conferred on him a legal right to the office for the space of five years from which he is not
removable at the will of the executive; and being so appointed, he has a right to the commission which the
secretary has received from the president for his use. The act of congress does not indeed order the secretary of
state to send it to him, but it is placed in his hands for the person entitled to it; and cannot be more lawfully
withheld by him, than by any other person.
That, having this legal title to the office, he has a consequent right to the commission; a refusal to deliver which,
is a plain violation of that right, for which the laws of his country afford him a remedy
3dly. If they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing from this court? Whether he is
entitled depends on the (1)nature of the writ and (2) the power of the court:
Nature: it is clearly a plain case of mandamus to deliver the commission or a copy of it from the
record
Power of the court: There is a conflict of a law and the Constitution:
o Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 authorizes the Supreme court "to issue writs of
mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or
persons holding office, under the authority of the United States." The secretary of state, being
a person holding an office under the authority of the United States, is precisely within the
letter of the description
o However, the US Constitution, In the distribution of the judicial power, has declared that
"the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other
public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the
supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction."
o The court ruled that the supreme court of the United States has not power to issue a
mandamus to a secretary of state of the United States, it being an exercise of original
jurisdiction not warranted by the Constitution.
AUSTRIA

Ruling: The rule must be discharged.

The Court determined that the applicant had a vested legal right in his appointment because
his commission had been signed by the President, sealed by the Secretary of State, and the
appointment was not revocable. The Court found that because the applicant had a legal title to the
office, the laws afforded him a remedy. However, the Court held that 13 of the Judiciary Act of
1789, giving the Court authority to issue writs of mandamus to an officer, was contrary to the
Constitution as an act of original jurisdiction, and therefore void.

The Constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United States in one supreme court, and such
inferior courts as Congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish. This power is expressly extended to
all cases arising under the laws of the United States; and consequently, in some form, may be exercised over
the present case; because the right claimed is given by a law of the United States.

DOCTRINE: It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those
who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict
with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the
Constitution; if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either
decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution; or conformably to the Constitution,
disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of
the very ESSENCE OF JUDICIAL DUTY.

Other significant things:

A commission bears date, and the salary of the officer commences from his appointment

Mandamus : a writ directed to an officer of government, and its mandate to him would be "to do a particular
thing therein specified, which appertains to his office and duty and which the court has previously
determined, or at least supposes, to be consonant to right and justice
Background/History: (wikipedia, not in the case)
In the presidential election of 1800, Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson defeated Federalist John Adams,
becoming the third President of the United States. Before the presidency is assumed by Jefferson, the Congress passed
the Judiciary Act of 1801 which modified the Judiciary Act of 1789 in establishing new district courts and expanding the number
of circuit courts and adding additional judges to each circuit, giving the President the authority to appoint Federal judges
and justices of the peace. The act also reduced the number of Supreme Court justices from six to five, effective upon the next
vacancy in the Court.
In an attempt to prevent the incoming Democratic-Republican Congress and administration, Adams appointed 16
Federalist circuit judges and 42 Federalist justices of the peace to offices created by the Judiciary Act of 1801. These
appointees, the infamous "Midnight Judges", included William Marbury, who had been appointed to the position of justice of the
peace in the District of Columbia. The term for a justice of the peace was five years, and they were "authorized to hold courts and
cognizance of personal demands of the value of 20 dollars."
The appointments were approved en masse by the Senate; however, to go into effect, the commissions had
to be delivered to those appointed. This task fell to the Secretary of State. While a majority of the commissions were
delivered, it proved impossible for all of them to be delivered before Adams's term as president expired. As these
appointments were routine in nature, Marshall assumed the new Secretary of State James Madison would see they were delivered,
since "they had been properly submitted and approved, and were, therefore, legally valid appointments."
On March 4, 1801, Thomas Jefferson was sworn in as President. As soon as he was able, President Jefferson
ordered not to deliver the remaining appointments. Without the commissions, the appointees were unable to
assume the offices and duties to which they had been appointed. In Jefferson's opinion, the undelivered
commissions, not having been delivered on time, were void.
The newly sworn-in Democratic-Republican Congress immediately set about voiding the Judiciary Act of 1801 with their
own Judiciary Act of 1802 which reversed the act of 1801 so that the Judicial branch once again operated under the dictates of
the original Judiciary Act of 1789.