Marbury v. Madison – Supreme Court review of congressional statutes

t Marshall1803. Which branch of the federal government shall have the final say in interpreting the USC?]; this case held unconstitutional one provision of Judiciary Act of 1789. This was pivotal case in constitutional law because it established judicial review, the power of federal courts to declare statutes unconstitutional.

t Historical background: There was a political struggle between John Adamsand the Federalists, and his successor ThomasJefferson and the Republicans. Just before leaving office, Adams appointed a number of new judges, including several justices of the peace for D.C. Commissions for these justices of the peace had been signed by Adams, but not yet delivered by the time he left office. Jefferson Administration then refused to honor the appointments for which commissions had not actually been delivered prior to the end of Adams’ term.

t Subject of suit: Several of the would-be justices of the peace, including William Marbury, brought suit directly in the SCt. They sought a writ of mandamus compelling Jefferson’s Secretary of State (James Madison) to deliver their commissions.

t Marshall’s decision: Marshall decided Marbury did have a right to his commission, and there is a remedy for the violation of this right, but Marshall dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction because the SCt was not the correct court to provide that remedy.

n Ordering of the issues: Marshall’s way of ordering the issues was extraordinary. Ordinarily, question of whether the court has jurisdiction should be considered first. If answer is no, then there is no occasion to reach substantive issue, such as whether Marbury had right to his commission. Best argument on behalf of Marshallis that, since judicial reviewis also a delicate matter, it was important for Marshall to demonstrate that he could not avoid the constitutional question.

n Right to commission: Marshalldecided that Marbury and the other justices did indeed become entitled to their commissions once these had been signed by the President (and sealed by Secretary of State, who was Marshall himself!). Marshall could have short-circuited the whole problem by ruling that delivery was required for validity, but he did not take this route.

n Remedy: Moreover, Marshall(too?) quickly concluded that this case was a proper case for the court to issue the writ of mandamus. Marshall distinguished between political acts, which are not reviewable by the courts, and acts specifically required by law, which are reviewable. The refusal to deliver the commissions fell into this latter category.

n Mandamus not allowed: Marshallhad to decide whether the particular remedy sought by Ps, an application for a writ of mandamus directly to SCt, could be granted.

(a) Judiciary Act allows: The then-effective Judiciary Act provided that the SCt would have jurisdiction “to issue . . . writs of mandamus . . . [to] persons holding office under the authority of the U.S.” Thus the Act itself explicitly authorized the relief being sought by Ps.

(b) At odds with USC: However, Marshallconcluded that this grant of jurisdiction was in conflict with Article III. §2, of USC, which grants the SCt original jurisdiction only “[i]n all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party.” Since issuance of mandamus is not among the types of cases as to which original jurisdiction is conferred on SCt, the congressional statute was at odds with the USC.

n Supremacy of USC (holding for which Marbury v. Madison) is principally known today): If SCt identifies a conflict between a constitutional provision and a congressional statute, SCt has the authority (and the duty) to declare the statute unconstitutional and to refuse to enforce it. Therefore, the requested writ of mandamus could not be issued. In reaching this conclusion, Marshallmade two interlocking arguments:

(a) USC is paramount: The very purpose of a written constitution is to establish a fundamental and paramount law. It follows from this that any act of the legislature repugnant to USC must be void.

(b) Who interprets: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” That is, it is the court, and not the legislature, which must make the determination whether, in a particular case, an act of Congress is in conflict with the USC. To deny the permissibility of judicial reviewof the constitutionality of a congressional statute would be to say that this courts “must close their eyes on the USC, and see only the law. This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.”

n What Marbury does not say:

(a) SCt was only branch of government that could make constitutional decisions.

(b) Congress and the president were obligated to follow SCt’s interpretations.

t Critique. In order to exercise judicial reviewin this case, Marshallfound it necessary to stretch his reading of both §13 and Article III. Unless both of these texts were read in the way that Marshall read them, there is no conflict between them, and therefore the case would not present an occasion for SCt to exercise power of judicial review. In each case, Marshall rejected without discussion or explanation the reading of the provision that would avoid the constitutional conflict.

n Marshallstretched §13 of Judicial Act of 1789 to say it conferred original jurisdiction on SC for writs of mandamus. §13 can be read as adding either to the SCt’s original jurisdiction or to its appellate jurisdiction. It depends on how you read the semicolon in last sentence in footnote on p. 27. If you regard mandamus power as expanding SCt’s appellate jurisdiction, then Marshall is right. But you can also read that power as applicable only in class of cases listed before semicolon.

n Marshallstretched USC Article III to say original jurisdiction could not exist for writs of mandamus. Article III, §2can be read either as forbidding Congress from adding to SCt’s original jurisdiction (USC describes maximum amount of original jurisdiction that SCt can possess) or as permitting Congress to add to SCt’s original jurisdiction (by one reading of the exceptions clause, Congress has power to grant Court original jurisdiction over cases over which it had appellate jurisdiction under USC).

t Who determines constitutionality? Most critics concede that the USC is superior to statutes and that where there is a conflict, USC must be respected. However, critics argue that nowhere in the USC is it stated that the courts, not Congress, ought to decide whether a given statute does in fact conflict with USC.

Date: 2015-01-02; view: 937