Does the Supreme Court possess the authority to compel the Secretary of State, through a writ of mandamus, to deliver a commission to a duly appointed justice of the peace?

William Marbury received an appointment as justice of the peace for Washington County in the District of Columbia from President John Adams. The President signed Marbury's commission and the Secretary of State sealed it. However, the commission was not delivered before the administration changed. James Madison, the new Secretary of State under President Jefferson, refused to deliver the commission to Marbury.

In response, Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus. This legal action sought to compel Madison to deliver the commission that had been prepared but not transmitted during the previous administration. The case thus centered on whether Marbury had a right to receive his commission and whether the Supreme Court had the authority to order its delivery.

Marbury filed a petition with the Supreme Court, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel Secretary of State James Madison to deliver his commission. The Court issued a rule requiring Madison to show cause for why a mandamus should not be issued. Madison did not show cause, and Marbury subsequently moved for the mandamus. The case thus proceeded directly to the Supreme Court without prior lower court proceedings or appeals.

(Marshall, J.)

No. The Supreme Court lacks the authority to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the Secretary of State to deliver a commission to a duly appointed justice of the peace. The Constitution explicitly defines and limits the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Congress cannot expand this jurisdiction through statute. The Judiciary Act of 1789, which purported to grant the Supreme Court power to issue writs of mandamus to public officers, is unconstitutional as it attempts to enlarge the Court's original jurisdiction beyond the scope set by Article III of the Constitution. The Supreme Court's jurisdiction is derived directly from the Constitution, and any act of Congress that conflicts with this constitutional allocation of power is void. This principle establishes the fundamental concept of judicial review - the authority of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative acts and to strike down those found to be in conflict with the Constitution. The separation of powers doctrine requires each branch of government to operate within its constitutionally prescribed limits. Allowing Congress to modify the Court's jurisdiction would upset this delicate balance and undermine the supremacy of the Constitution. While the aggrieved party may have a right to the commission and the laws may provide a remedy, the proper forum for seeking such remedy is not within the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. The Court's power to issue writs of mandamus is properly exercised only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, not as an expansion of its original jurisdiction.