Marbury v. Madison Case Brief PDF

Preview

Summary

Case Brief...

Description

●

●

●

●

●

Marbury v. Madison (1803) Case Brief Facts: ○ Parties: Plaintiff: Marbury (federal judicial nominee) v. Defendant: Madison (US Secretary of State) ○ The Plaintiff sued the defendant for his appointment of a justice of peace. The previous President, Adams, signed the letter while in office that appointment would be given to the Plaintiff. The Defendant, Secretary of State, did not deliver the letter in which it was the Defendant’s duties. Procedural Posture: ○ Supreme Court is the original jurisdiction in this case. The Plaintiff petitioned for a writ of mandamus, so there are no prior history of this case. Issues: ○ 1) Is Marbury entitled to delivery of his judicial commission? ○ 2) Is Marbury entitled to a legal remedy for failure to deliver his commission? ○ 3) Is Marbury entitled to a writ of mandamus by the US Supreme Court directing the Secretary of State (on behalf of the Executive Branch) to deliver his commission? Holding ○ 1) Is Marbury entitled to delivery of his judicial commission? (Yes) ○ 2) Is Marbury entitled to a legal remedy for failure to deliver his commission? (Yes) ○ 3) Is Marbury entitled to a writ of mandamus by the US Supreme Court directing the Secretary of State (on behalf of the Executive Branch) to deliver his commission? (No) Rationale ○ Standard: A judicial commission is not recognized until the recipient has received the commission papers for appointment. ○ Facts: Plaintiff’s commission was signed and sealed by the President Adams while President Adams was in office, but not delivered. ■ Conclusion (Undisputed): Therefore, Plaintiff is not a legally recognized federal justice of the peace ○ Standard: The irrevocable appointment of a federal justice of the peace is established once the Presidential signature is placed on the document, the delivery is merely procedural. ■ Conclusion (a): Therefore, Plaintiff has properly been appointed as a justice of the peace and has a legal right to the delivery of his commission papers ○ Standard: The violation of any legal right deserves a remedy ○ Facts: Plaintiff has not received his commission papers ■ Conclusion (b): Plaintiff is entitled to a legal remedy for the failure to deliver his commission papers ● Standard 1: The US Supreme Court can only grant a remedy if it has proper jurisdiction to hear the case ● Standard 2: The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land; and law or action that contradicts the Constitution must be “void” ● Court’s Interpretation: Section 13 of the 1789 Judiciary Act gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction; however, in contradiction, Article III of the US Constitution limits the Supreme Court’s “original” jurisdiction ● Conclusion (c): Therefore, Section 13 is unconstitutional and void, the Supreme Court does not have proper jurisdiction over this case, and the Plaintiff is not entitled to a writ of mandamus...