What legal issues are addressed in this case?

The case addresses whether Marbury had a right to his commission, whether the laws afford a remedy for withholding it, and whether the Supreme Court could issue a writ of mandamus. It also addresses whether Congress may expand the Court's original jurisdiction beyond Article III, and whether a statute repugnant to the Constitution is valid law that courts must enforce.

What rule did the court rely on in this case?

A written constitution establishes limited government, so an ordinary legislative act contrary to it is void. When a statute and the Constitution conflict, courts must apply the Constitution. Article III's enumeration of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction is exclusive, so Congress cannot add to it, and section 13 of the Judiciary Act was therefore unconstitutional.

Would the case have come out differently if certain facts were changed?

Yes. Had the office been removable at the President's will, Marbury would have had no vested right and no claim. Had Marbury filed in a lower court, or had the Judiciary Act not purported to grant original mandamus jurisdiction, the Court could have reached the merits and issued the writ. If the matter had involved a political act within executive discretion, the Court would have refused review entirely.

Marbury v. Madison

Supreme Court of the United States - 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137

Main Takeaway

Courts have the power and duty to declare acts of Congress that conflict with the Constitution void, because the Constitution is paramount law and it is the judiciary's province to say what the law is. This established judicial review, even as the Court denied Marbury relief for lack of jurisdiction.

Issues

Does an act of Congress that purports to expand the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction beyond the cases enumerated in Article III, and that conflicts with the Constitution, remain valid law that courts must enforce?

Facts

On the eve of leaving office, President John Adams signed a commission appointing William Marbury as a justice of the peace for the county of Washington in the District of Columbia, under an act of Congress passed in February 1801 that authorized five-year terms for such justices. The commission was signed by the President and sealed by the Secretary of State, but it was never delivered to Marbury. After the change of administration, James Madison, the new Secretary of State, withheld the commission. Marbury applied directly to the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus compelling Madison to deliver the commission or a copy of it from the record. The Court issued a rule requiring Madison to show cause why the writ should not issue. Madison showed no cause. Marbury relied on section 13 of the Judiciary Act, which authorized the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus to persons holding office under the authority of the United States.

Procedural History

Marbury filed an original application in the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus directed to the Secretary of State. At the prior term, on affidavits filed with the clerk, the Court granted a rule requiring Madison to show cause why a mandamus should not issue to deliver the commission. No cause was shown, and the matter came before the Court on Marbury's motion for the writ.

Holding and Rationale

(Marshall, C.J.)

No. Marbury has a legal right to the commission, and the laws afford him a remedy, but the Supreme Court cannot issue the writ because the statute granting it that power is unconstitutional and void.

The appointment was complete when the President signed the commission and the Secretary of State affixed the seal. Because the office carried a fixed five-year term and was not removable at the executive's will, Marbury acquired a vested legal right that the executive cannot revoke. Withholding the commission violates that right. Where a specific duty is assigned by law and individual rights depend on its performance, an officer is subject to judicial remedy. Political acts committed to executive discretion are not reviewable, but withholding a commission to which an appointed officer has a vested right is not a political act and is subject to judicial remedy. As Blackstone stated, every legal right, when withheld, must have a remedy. Mandamus is the proper remedy because no other specific legal remedy is adequate.

The Court nevertheless lacks power to issue the writ. Article III gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction only in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and cases in which a state is a party, and appellate jurisdiction in all others. Reading the enumeration as non-exclusive would render it surplusage. Section 13 of the Judiciary Act, by authorizing mandamus to public officers as an exercise of original jurisdiction, expands the Court's original jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution allows.

A law repugnant to the Constitution is void. A written constitution establishes limited powers, and those limits are meaningless if the legislature may exceed them by ordinary statute. It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. When a statute and the Constitution conflict, courts must decide which governs, and the Constitution, as paramount law, controls. The judicial oath, the Supremacy Clause, and the extension of judicial power to cases arising under the Constitution confirm that courts may not enforce unconstitutional statutes. The rule is therefore discharged.