Name: Bisma Awan

Roll no: F2017117107

Subject: Administrative Law

INTRODUCTION:

Marbury v. Madison is a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court first declared
a congressional act unconstitutional on February 24, 1803, establishing the principle of "judicial
review," which states that the supreme court has the power to review the constitutionality of acts
passed by Congress or the President and to overturn those actions that judges find to be in
violation of the constitution, or the power of federal courts to declare legislative and executive
acts unconstitutional. The unanimous ruling, issued by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803, was
essential in establishing the Supreme Court as a separate department of government on par with
the legislative and executive branches.

HISTORY:

In the 1800s the U.S. regime changed from federalist to anti-federalist. The case originated from
the political rivalry between outgoing President John Adams, who embraced Alexander
Hamilton’s and the Federalist Party’s pro-business and pro-national government beliefs, and
incoming President Thomas Jefferson, who valued agriculture and decentralization and led the
Democratic-Republican Party.

The presidential election of 1800, pitted John Adams, Federalist president against his former
vice-president John Jefferson of Democratic-Republican. Jefferson defeated the Federalist party
of John Adams. The Federalists, who controlled Congress, seeing what was happening made a
present for the incoming Administration in the form of some laws that created some new
judgeships as well as justices of the peace in the District of Columbia (DC). They proceeded to
stuff those offices with loyal federalists and these were people like William Marbury who were
granted a commission as of the Justices of Peace in DC. This was done to ensure that the
Federalist Party controlled the court when Thomas Jefferson, took over as president. These
appointments were also approved by the Senate and signed by the President. However before the
judges could take their offices, there was one last step, which was the delivery of Commissions,
a formal piece of paper, that essentially approved them to take up their offices. Now these
Commissions hadn’t been delivered as of yet, meaning thereby that judges could not start their
jobs.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Marbury was appointed by the Federalist President, the outgoing federalist president, John
Adams, to be a justice of the peace in Washington DC but John Marshall, who was both
Secretary of the State and the Chief Justice of United States under John Adams, didn’t have the
chance to deliver the commission because these were midnight judges who were appointed
almost at the last minute, as the Adams Administration was going out the door. So, the
commission for Marbury was still sitting on the desk of the new Secretary of State who was
James Madison when the Jefferson Administration took over and the Jefferson party was
outraged by what they saw as an effort to pack the judiciary by the outgoing administration so,
they were refusing to deliver the commission. Marbury wanted his commission, so he brought
the lawsuit in the United States Supreme Court asking the court to issue a writ of mandamus
demanding the Secretary of State to deliver the commission to him and that’s what leads to the
case Marbury versus Madison. This is the case about men fighting with Jefferson’s government
to get the jobs that Adam’s government commissioned for them because the President Jefferson
and his Administration refused to deliver the commission which entitled them to take the job.
The court did not want to get involved in the partisan dispute between the parties but it had to
make a decision about the case

ISSUES:

 Whether the appointment letter was issued or not? If it was issued, then whether the
commission was delivered or not?
 Did Marbury have a right to his commission? If he did, and his right had been violated,
did the law provide him with a remedy?
  Whether the Supreme Court, which was part of the judicial branch of the government,
could give Marbury remedy against Madison? Did it have jurisdiction or not?

ANALYSIS & DECISION OF THE COURT:

The court first established that the letter of appointment was indeed issued but the Commission
was not delivered. Since the commission was properly signed and sealed, and all of the legal
formalities were followed, CJ Marshall found that Marbury had the right of commission. Hence
Marbury was entitled to the Commission therefore it was his right to receive his commission and
hence Marbury has the right to remedy as well. When Madison claimed that the commission was
void if it was not delivered, the court disagreed, stating that commission delivery was only a
custom, not a requirement of the commission.  

After determining that Marbury had a right to the commission, Marshall moved on to the issue of
remedy, concluding that Marbury did. Marshall wrote that “it is a general and indisputable rule,
that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law, whenever
that right is invaded” – a rule derived from the traditional Roman legal maxim ubi jus, ibi
remedium (“where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy”).

The Supreme Court’s ability to hear Marbury’s case was based on section 13 of the Judicial Act
of 1789 that allowed the court the power to issue writs directly to federal officeholders without
going through a lower court. However, as Marshall pointed out, Article III, Section 2 of the
Constitution already stated that the court only had original jurisdiction in cases involving
“ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party,”
and that it could only act as an appeals court in the rest of the cases. As a result, Congress’s
expansion of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction was unconstitutional. Hence the Supreme Court
stated that it does not have the power to make Madison hand over Marbury’s commission.
Furthermore, the clause allowing the court to issue writ came from the judiciary act 1789, was
actually unconstitutional. Since section 13 of this law violated the constitution by giving the
courts such powers which the constitution said it shouldn’t have. Hence, the court dismissed the
writ petition, stating that it does not have any power to interfere since the Constitution is the
supreme law of the land. Therefore if there occurs a clash between the two then the constitution
will always prevail. Chief Justice John Marshall then outlined the role of the court saying it is the
duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular
cases, must of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other the
court must decide on the operation of each.

SIGNIFICANCE:

This case brought the Concept of Judicial Review through which the authority of the interpreter
got decided at first instance. The role of the judiciary as an independent and transparent institute
for reviewing the functions of the other two organs was set-up. This also gave large scope of
check and balance of power of one organ to another which is an integral part of Rule of Law.
Supremacy of Constitutional which is yet another important aspect of Rule of Law gets strength
through it. Lastly, it also undoes and promotes the superiority of law from its subject matter.
These all principles worked as a source of inspiration and learning for other countries’ judiciary,
it also teaches us the way of maintaining the conflict between political parties in a very legal
neutral way by upholding the spirit of constitutionalism in context.