Scribd
Upload
117 views1 page

Practice Case Brief - Marbury v. Madison

William Marbury was appointed as a Justice of the Peace by President Adams but was not given his commission by the new Jefferson administration. Marbury sued, arguing he was entitled to the commission once signed and sealed. The Supreme Court found that while Marbury had a right to the commission, it could not issue a writ of mandamus as requested because the law granting it that power was unconstitutional, exceeding the Court's original jurisdiction set out in the Constitution. Thus the Court established its power of judicial review but could provide no remedy in this particular case.

Uploaded by

Jay Hauser
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
117 views1 page

Practice Case Brief - Marbury v. Madison

William Marbury was appointed as a Justice of the Peace by President Adams but was not given his commission by the new Jefferson administration. Marbury sued, arguing he was entitled to the commission once signed and sealed. The Supreme Court found that while Marbury had a right to the commission, it could not issue a writ of mandamus as requested because the law granting it that power was unconstitutional, exceeding the Court's original jurisdiction set out in the Constitution. Thus the Court established its power of judicial review but could provide no remedy in this particular case.

Uploaded by

Jay Hauser
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Jay Hauser

POL 322-A
January 25th, 2019
Dr. Boddery

1) Bluebook Citation: Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).


2) Parties: William Marbury (petitioner), James Madison (respondent, Secretary of State)
3) Procedural History: The Supreme Court of the United States was the first court to hear the case.
4) Facts:
 William Marbury was appointed as a Justice of the Peace during the final days of the Adams
administration.
 The Jefferson administration refused to give William Marbury his signed and sealed
commission to become a Justice of the Peace.
 His commission was signed and affixed with the seal of the President of the United States.
 The Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized the Supreme Court of the United States to issue writs of
mandamus as a part of its original jurisdiction.
5) Arguments:
Petitioner Marbury argued that he was due his commission, since it was already signed and
affixed with an official seal. Petitioner Marbury argued that the discretionary powers of the executive
only allow him to sign and seal a commission, rather than refuse to deliver one. Furthermore, Marbury
argues that the appropriate remedy is the issuance of a writ of mandamus. Finally, petitioner Marbury
contends that the Judiciary Act of 1789, allowing the Supreme Court to issue these writs as a court of
original jurisdiction, provides a constitutionally permissible remedy, as Article III, Section 2 of the
United States Constitution implicitly allows the legislature to further define instances where the
Supreme Court has original jurisdiction.
6) Issues:
 Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands?
 If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a
remedy?
 If they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing from this court?
7) Legal Rules:
 Yes. Once their commission is signed and affixed with the seal of the President of the United
States, an officer is appointed.
 Yes. The delivery of a commission is a part of an officer’s responsibility to carry out the law,
rather than a discretionary act.
 No. Congress cannot, through a simple act of law, change the original jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court.
8) Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the president’s discretionary appointment powers were fully
utilized when the Adams administration signed and sealed the commission. These discretionary powers
alone count as the appointment. On the other hand, the delivery of the commission falls under the
Jefferson administration’s duty as officers of the law. The Court then studied the nature of a writ of
mandamus, determining that, because writs of mandamus are meant to be issued to officers of the law,
it is an appropriate remedy to Marbury’s complaint. However, the Court found that it cannot issue a writ
of mandamus. It reasoned that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 violated the Constitution by
expanding original jurisdiction for the Supreme Court, because its original jurisdiction must be limited
to the instances listed in Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution. Otherwise, there would
be no reason to list the instances in the first place. Finally, the Court determined that the supremacy of
the Constitution over ordinary law requires the Court to disregard unconstitutional law when making
decisions.
9) Disposition: The Court, acting as the court of original jurisdiction, ruled in favor of the petitioner, but
found itself unable to provide a constitutional remedy.

Page 1 of 1

You might also like