Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Marbury vs. Madison 1 Cranch (5 U.S.) 137, 2 L.ED. 60 (1803) Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ace Lawrence Antazo
    34 views1 page
    Marbury vs. Madison established the principle of judicial review. The Supreme Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to issue Marbury's writ of mandamus because the section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that granted original jurisdiction was unconstitutional. This was the first time the Court asserted its authority to deem a law unconstitutional, establishing that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that the Court can review the constitutionality of laws.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Marbury vs. Madison established the principle of judicial review. The Supreme Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to issue Marbury's writ of mandamus because the section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that granted original jurisdiction was unconstitutional. This was the first time the Court asserted its authority to deem a law unconstitutional, establishing that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that the Court can review the constitutionality of laws.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    34 views1 page

    Marbury vs. Madison 1 Cranch (5 U.S.) 137, 2 L.ED. 60 (1803) Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ace Lawrence Antazo
    Marbury vs. Madison established the principle of judicial review. The Supreme Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to issue Marbury's writ of mandamus because the section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that granted original jurisdiction was unconstitutional. This was the first time the Court asserted its authority to deem a law unconstitutional, establishing that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that the Court can review the constitutionality of laws.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Marbury vs. Madison 1 Cranch (5 U.S.) 137, 2 L.ED.

    60 (1803)

    FACTS:
    Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the presidential election of 1800. But
    before Jefferson could take office, Adams and the Congress passed the Judiciary Act
    of 1801, which created more positions in the Judiciary, which then allowed Adams to
    appoint more of his supporters into said positions. These were called the “Midnight
    Judges”.
    One of these people was William Marbury who was supposed to be the Justice of the
    Peace of the District of Columbia. Like many others of the Midnight Judges, his
    appointment was approved by the Senate, but he cannot assume his position until his
    commission was personally given by John Marshall, then Secretary of State.
    When Jefferson took office, his Congress replaced the Judiciary Act of 1801 with the
    Judiciary Act of 1802, which reverted the judiciary back to how it was in the Judiciary
    Act of 1789. He also stopped his Secretary of State to stop giving commissions, so
    Marbury never got his. Marbury then filed this petition for Mandamus to compel the
    U.S. government to give his commission and start this appointment as judge.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not Marbury had a right to his commission and can he compel the
    government to deliver it to him?

    RULING:
    The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it did not have the jurisdiction to issue the Writ of
    Mandamus since the Judiciary Act of 1789, that supposedly gave the Court original
    jurisdiction over cases like this was found to have conflicts with the U.S. Constitution.
    The two laws gave different parameters for the Court’s original jurisdiction, but the
    Court held that if there are conflicts between regular legislation and the constitution,
    the constitution will always prevail.
    The Court held that the constitution was supreme to all laws. It Is not merely a
    foundation that the congress can use to base legislate, but instead all laws and all
    judges take an oath to uphold it.

    You might also like