Marbury v. Madison - Professor Denison Case Brief PDF

Preview

Summary

Professor Denison Case Brief...

Description

Marbury V. Madison (1803) Case Facts: Towards the end of his Federalist administration, President John Adams made many appointments to the judiciary. One of these “midnight appointments” was William Marbury. After Adams’ Presidency ended, President Thomas Jefferson and Secretary of State James Madison took over. In the transition period, James Madison encountered some commissions that Marshall failed to deliver during the previous term, and under Jefferson’s orders, Madison refused to deliver the commissions. As a result, four individuals that were denied their commissions, one of which was William Marbury, sought original jurisdiction from the U.S. Supreme Court. Marbury and the others asked the Court to issue a writ of mandamus ordering Madison to deliver their commissions under the Judiciary Act of 1789. Central Issues 1. Does Marbury have a right to the commission he demands? 2. If he has a right, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy? 3. If they can afford him a remedy, is it one that can be issued from the Supreme Court? Answers 1. Yes 2. Yes 3. No Reasoning 1. Yes, because the commission had been signed by President Adams and sealed by Secretary of State John Marshall, and thus the appointment process is complete and the law continues him in office for five years. 2. The President used his appointment powers to sign a commission to be sent to Marbury, and therefore Marbury has a legal right to said commission. A violation to deliver this commission to Marbury is an outward violation of his right to the office for which he had been appointed, and his country affords him a remedy for violating this civil liberty 3. According to the U.S. constitution, the Supreme Court can not issue a writ of mandamus on Marbury’s behalf. In Article III, Congress is given the right to regulate appellate jurisdiction, but not original jurisdiction, which can not legally be added to or taken away from. Therefore, the provision in the Judiciary Act of 1789 that mentions writs of mandamus is an overreach of Congressional power given in the Constitution, and as a result the Court can not give Marbury the writ he asked for. Other Opinions: None Principles of Law: (1) The appointment process is complete and made law when it is signed by the President and sealed by the Secretary of State. (2) The country affords an individual a remedy if an institution's actions violate their rights. (3) To issue a writ of mandamus the Supreme Court must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, meaning that the case would be correcting or revising the decision or action by a lower court not taking original action.

Contextualization : This case marked the first time the Supreme Court ruled an act (The Judiciary Act of 1789) of Congress unconstitutional, thus establishing Judicial Review. By asserting the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional, Marshall claimed for the court a paramount position as interpreter of the Constitution....