Did Marbury have a right to his commission? If he had such a right, and the right was violated, did the law provide a remedy? And if the law provided a remedy, was the proper remedy a direct order from the Supreme Court? Writing for the Court in , Marshall answered the first two questions resoundingly in the affirmative.
Marshall also ruled that Marbury was indeed entitled to a legal remedy for his injury. It was in the third part of the opinion that presented a dilemma: If Marshall decided to grant the remedy and order delivery of the commissions, he risked simply being ignored by his rivals, thereby exposing the young Supreme Court as powerless to enforce its decisions, and damaging its future legitimacy. But siding with Madison would have been seen as caving to political pressure—an equally damaging outcome, particularly to Marshall who valued the Court as a nonpartisan institution.
The ultimate resolution is seen by many scholars as a fine balancing of these interests: Marshall ruled that the Supreme Court could not order delivery of the commissions, because the law establishing such a power was unconstitutional itself. At that point, the appointment process was considered complete when the signed and sealed appointments had been delivered by the secretary of state, at that time John Marshall , to the appointees.
After Jefferson took office, he instructed his secretary of state, James Madison , to decline to deliver any outstanding appointments from the Adams administration. William Marbury, who Adams had appointed Justice of the Peace for the District of Columbia, petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus , a ruling that would have compelled Madison to deliver his commission or to demonstrate why Marbury should not receive it.
In a decision, the Supreme Court ruled that although it was illegal for Madison to withhold the delivery of the appointments, forcing Madison to deliver the appointments was beyond the power of the U.
Supreme Court. In answering the first two questions, Marshall and the court found that the plaintiffs, who included Marbury, had the right to receive their commissions and could use the judicial system to seek those appointments.
The Marbury case has been understood as the decision that established a precedent of judicial review , the notion that laws passed by Congress could be reviewed by the judicial branch of government to determine their adherence to the Constitution. Ballotpedia features , encyclopedic articles written and curated by our professional staff of editors, writers, and researchers.
Click here to contact our editorial staff, and click here to report an error. Click here to contact us for media inquiries, and please donate here to support our continued expansion.
As secretary of state, Marshall signed and sealed the necessary judicial commissions, but the commissions were not delivered by the end of 3 March. Jefferson's term began on 4 March, and he ordered his new secretary of state, James Madison, not to deliver the commissions. Jefferson decided to view the commissions as invalid unless delivered. Have a question? Need assistance? Use our online form to ask a librarian for help. The U. Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison established the principle of judicial review—the power of the federal courts to declare legislative and executive acts unconstitutional.
0コメント