Marbury v.

Madison
5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
Facts
William Marbury (plaintiff) was appointed Justice of the Peace of the District of
Columbia by President John Adams at the close of Adams' presidency. When the
new president, Thomas Jefferson, assumed office, he refused to fully finalize
Adams' appointments of Marbury and several other appointees. Relying on
Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, Marbury then brought an action in the
United States Supreme Court against James Madison (defendant), Thomas
Jefferson's Secretary of State, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel him to
finalize Marbury's political appointment.
Rule of Law
The Supreme Court of the United States has the authority to review laws and legislative
acts to determine whether they comply with the United States Constitution.
Issue(s)
(1) Does Marbury have the right to his judicial appointment? (2) If he does have a right
and that right is violated, does Marbury have a remedy under United States law? (3) If
Marbury is entitled to a remedy, is that remedy specifically a writ of mandamus as
outlined in Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789?
Holding and Reasoning
(Marshall, C.J.) (1) Yes. Marbury does have a right to his commission as Justice of the
Peace because he was lawfully appointed to that position by the President's act of signing
his commission, further enforced by his confirmation in the Senate. (2) Yes. In this
situation, Marbury is entitled to a remedy under federal law. The appropriate remedy
depends on whether Marbury is merely a political agent of the President, or whether his
commission has the effect of giving him a specific duty assigned by law. If Marbury is
merely a political agent, he is not entitled to a remedy, but if Marbury was deprived of his
ability to fulfill a duty assigned to him by law, then he is entitled to a remedy for that
deprivation. In this case, Marbury was appointed by a legal act of the President. He was
given legal title to the office of Justice of the Peace for the duration of his appointment.
Thus, Madison's refusal to finalize Marbury's appointment interferes with Marbury's legal
title. Marbury is entitled to a remedy under federal law. (3) It depends. Although a writ of
mandamus would have been appropriate, Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which
authorized the United States Supreme Court to give such a remedy, is unconstitutional.
The Act allows the Supreme Court to have original jurisdiction over actions for writs of
mandamus. However, this provision directly conflicts with Article III of the Constitution,
which greatly limits the cases in which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction and
provides it with appellate jurisdiction in all other cases. The Act is unconstitutional
because it seeks to expand the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction and therefore
jurisdiction over Marbury's claim cannot be exercised.