Marbury v. Madison Case Brief (includes reflection)

Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)FactsMarbury was commissioned to serve as a judge by reason president stool Adam. The former Secretary of State and the present Chief jurist John marshal failed to deliver the commission before President doubting Thomas Jefferson started his term. The current Secretary of State, James Madison, under Jefferson?s orders, did non deliver the commission. Marbury applied for a writ of mandamus to military posture Madison to deliver said commission. HoldingMarbury?s application for a writ of mandamus was rejected because the Judiciary Act of 1789, the truth on which his application was ground, was found by the Marshall salute to be unconstitutional.

ReasoningThe holding was derived from several reasons.

The tourist motor lodge first contemplated whether Marbury has a even out to the commission that he wants delivered to him. The Marshall greet establish that, since his commission is for a legal position, and non for a political one, the Executive branch does non shake up the power to stamp out it without violating his vested serious to the position. As his right has indeed been violated, the court dogged that the laws of the United States and judicial system need to provide him a solution ? it is the duty of the judicial branch to do so. The court also states that since an officer has indeed infringed up on the right of an individual, a mandamus is a valid remedy to consider.

However, the Marshall Court found that the Act on which this request is based on, Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, is in involution with phrase 3, Section 2 of the US natural law. Section 13 increased the imperious Court?s power, giving it the right to issue writs of mandamus in appellate and original cases, whereas the personality stated that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction only if for cases affected ministers, ambassadors, and consuls. Section 13 does indeed estimableify the granting of a writ, but Article3 Section 2 does not, as Marbury does not die to any of the groups mentioned in the Constitution. This means that the Supreme Court is not authorized to hear the case and thus does not accommodate the power to grant the mandamus.

Because the Constitution is considered to be a ?fundamental principle? of Ameri send packing society, any legislature that conflicts with it is considered to be void. Since the Constitution limits the powers of the three branches of the US brass, any act that expands or decreases their jurisdictions must(prenominal) be deemed unconstitutional. From this, the Supreme Court deems the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. The Supreme Court can draw this conclusion because the judicial section is bound to support the Constitution, as stated in the Article VI, ?all executive and judicial officers shall be bound by oath [. . .] to support this Constitution?. As a settlement of this conclusion, Marbury?s request was discharged.

ReflectionThis trial was held during a politically longing time. Many last-minute appointments of numerous Federalists to the judicial branch occurred, which greatly angered the newly elected Republicans. The Marshall Court ask to make sure his ruling placates both groups.



Because they have to this motive, the court?s goal was not to ensure that Marbury receives a just remedy for an infringement of his right ? thus, Marbury did not get the uncontaminating hearing he deserved as an American citizen.

As he was the former secretary of state, his appointment to Chief Justice should have been questioned by the judges that were already a dissolve of the Supreme Court. Political interests and judicial decisions should remain separate so that both branches can function properly and fair solutions argon presented to everyone. Since Marshall is a Federalist from the newly discharged government, he should have stepped down.

Since this case was merely in the wrong court, the Marshall Court should have ruled that the case needs to be hear in a different court instead of discharging it. Because of this, it can be concluded that they actually overstepped their jurisdiction when they discharged the case. Also, it is knotty whether the court overstepped jurisdiction by establishing the precedent of judicial review. period it is true that Article III and VI do not assert judicial review, meaning that the Marshall Court did overstep, the asylum of judicial review has helped the American people. It gave the judicial branch of government an additional power to check against unconstitutional acts and laws. While the blueprint of establishing this rule may have been for reasons other than the ones stated in the Opinion of the Court, it contributed to the development of American constitutional policies, which improved the lives of the American people.

Reference:Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)

If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: Orderessay



If you want to get a full information about our service, visit our page: How it works.