Marbury V Madison

Mark Bao 23 October 2008 U.S. History 31 Heideman Orange Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803) Procedure: To-be Justice of Peace William Marbury is suing Secretary of State James Madison, over deliverance of his commission as the Justice of Peace. Marbury was appointed to the job during the presidency of John Adams, and feels that he had been already approved, as the commissions were signed and sealed with the Seal of the United States. He was refused the position during the Jeffersonian presidency, as he did not receive a commission, which they also refused. Thus, he sued Secretary of State James Madison The courts agreed that the commissions once signed and sealed were valid even if not delivered (pp. 14–15). On February 24, 1803, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in favour of Marbury (pg. 14). Facts: A law passed through congress on February 1801. A commission was to be given to the Justice of Peace William Marbury, by John Adams, to fulfill the prerequisite of receiving a commission before serving. However, Marbury never received this commission (pp. 14–15). James Madison appointed judges prior to the end of his term, but as Jefferson went into power, with a Jeffersonian congress, yet a Federalist justice department, Jefferson’s administration repealed the Judiciary Act of 1800 which defined 42 more judges to the justice system (pg. 14). The commissions for these permissions, Jefferson hoped, would be voided, and he ordered Secretary of State to not deliver the commissions, to expel the Federalist judge majority. Therefore, William Marbury sued James Madison to try to force him to hand out the commissions. 1 Jefferson stated that the 42 justices appointed during Adams’ last days, the ‘midnight judges,’ to be null and void, without signed and sealed commissions (pg. 14). Issues: 1) Is appointment final, even without a commission delivered, but signed and sealed by a previous presidency, and should it be respected in the new presidency? 2) How much power does the Supreme Court have over the creation and repealing of laws? Decision: Chief Justice John Marshall stated that since the commissions were signed by John Adams and had the Seal of the United States, that no matter if they were delivered or not delivered to the party in question, they were valid documents, and they were valid and official. (With this, of course, the President cannot take it upon himself to ‘fire’ the judge.) Therefore, the commissions, albeit not delivered, were still valid (pp. 15–16). Also, due to the fact that Marbury does have an official position, “refusal to deliver [is] a plain violation of that right, for which the laws of his country afford him a remedy” (pg. 16). Thus, the Supreme Court compelled the Secretary of State to deliver these commissions. In addition, he is “entitled to a remedy for which he applies” (pg. 16). 1

http://www.jmu.edu/madison/center/main_pages/madison_archives/era/judicial/bkgrnd.htm

Impact: This not only challenged the powers that the presidential and legislature had, specifically in not recognizing judges due to commissions not delivered. The case strengthened the Supreme Court as the highest court and a top authority in the government. After his stated decision, Chief Justice John Marshall stated the powers of the Supreme Court, and that they would decide on the constitutionality of laws, whether to choose constitution over law, and other matters; they take an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. Therefore, their position in society and the government was strengthened by its decision. (pg. 16–18)