Which Early Landmark Case Granted the Supreme Court the Power of Judicial Review

Portrait of William Marbury.
The landmark 1803 case Marbury five. Madison marked the first time the Court asserted its office in reviewing federal legislation to determine its compatibility with the Constitution -- the function of judicial review. To a higher place, a portrait of plaintiff William Marbury.

Reproduction courtesy of the Part of the Supreme Court Curator

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Marbury v. Madison, arguably the most important instance in Supreme Courtroom history, was the first U.S. Supreme Court instance to employ the principle of "judicial review" -- the power of federal courts to void acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution. Written in 1803 past Chief Justice John Marshall, the determination played a primal role in making the Supreme Courtroom a separate co-operative of authorities on par with Congress and the executive.

The facts surrounding Marbury were complicated. In the ballot of 1800, the newly organized Autonomous-Republican party of Thomas Jefferson defeated the Federalist party of John Adams, creating an atmosphere of political panic for the lame duck Federalists. In the last days of his presidency, Adams appointed a large number of justices of peace for the District of Columbia whose commissions were approved past the Senate, signed by the president, and affixed with the official seal of the government. The commissions were not delivered, withal, and when President Jefferson assumed office March 5, 1801, he ordered James Madison, his Secretary of State, non to deliver them. William Marbury, i of the appointees, then petitioned the Supreme Courtroom for a writ of mandamus, or legal order, compelling Madison to show crusade why he should not receive his commission.

In resolving the example, Chief Justice Marshall answered three questions. First, did Marbury have a right to the writ for which he petitioned? 2nd, did the laws of the United States let the courts to grant Marbury such a writ? Third, if they did, could the Supreme Court issue such a writ? With regard to the first question, Marshall ruled that Marbury had been properly appointed in accordance with procedures established by law, and that he therefore had a right to the writ. Secondly, because Marbury had a legal correct to his committee, the police must afford him a remedy. The Master Justice went on to say that it was the item responsibleness of the courts to protect the rights of individuals -- even confronting the president of the United States. At the time, Marshall's thinly disguised lecture to President Jefferson almost the rule of police force was much more controversial than his statement most judicial review (which doctrine was widely accustomed).

It was in answering the tertiary question -- whether a writ of mandamus issuing from the Supreme Court was the proper remedy -- that Marshall addressed the question of judicial review. The Principal Justice ruled that the Court could not grant the writ because Section 13 of the Judiciary Deed of 1789, which granted it the right to practice so, was unconstitutional insofar as it extended to cases of original jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction -- the power to bring cases direct to the Supreme Court -- was the simply jurisdictional matter dealt with past the Constitution itself. According to Article III, it applied only to cases "affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls" and to cases "in which the state shall be party." Past extending the Courtroom'southward original jurisdiction to include cases similar Marbury'south, Congress had exceeded information technology dominance. And when an deed of Congress is in conflict with the Constitution, it is, Marshall said, the obligation of the Court to uphold the Constitution because, by Article VI, it is the "supreme constabulary of the land."

As a result of Marshall'southward determination Marbury was denied his committee -- which presumably pleased President Jefferson. Jefferson was not pleased with the lecture given him by the Chief Justice, nonetheless, nor with Marshall's affidavit of the Court's power to review acts of Congress. For applied strategic reasons, Marshall did not say that the Court was the but interpreter of the Constitution (though he hoped information technology would be) and he did not say how the Courtroom would enforce its decisions if Congress or the Executive opposed them. But, past his timely assertion of judicial review, the Court began its ascent equally an equal branch of government -- an equal in power to the Congress and the president. Throughout its long history, when the Courtroom needed to affirm its legitimacy, it has cited Marshall'southward opinion in Marbury v. Madison.


	AUTHOR'Due south BIO

	Alex McBride is a 3rd year law student at Tulane Police School in New Orleans. He is articles editor on the TULANE Police force REVIEW and the 2005 recipient of the Ray Forrester Award in Ramble Police. In 2007, Alex will exist clerking with Gauge Susan Braden on the Usa Court of Federal Claims in Washington.