However, a ruling in favor of Marbury ordering Madison to deliver the commission would likely have been ignored by the Jefferson administration. That possibility risked making the relatively young Supreme Court appear weak or ineffective. Marshall began addressing the dilemma by asking three questions :. After digging into the details surrounding the appointment process, Marshall found that all procedures were followed according to the letter of the law.
However, what exactly the legal remedy would be in this case still remained up for debate. Could the Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus, as Marbury had requested, and force Secretary Madison to comply?
Marbury had a legal right to his commission, which was violated by Madison. Marbury requested a writ of mandamus to force Madison to deliver his commission, which was the proper legal remedy. But did the Supreme Court, with whom Marbury filed his suit directly, have the proper jurisdiction and, therefore, the power to issue that writ in this case?
Marbury turned to the Judiciary Act of for his answer, legislation necessitated by the U. Constitution to outline the structure of the Supreme Court. Section 13 of the act states the following:. Because Marbury filed his case directly with the Court, his case was a matter of original jurisdiction.
This section of the act clearly states that the Supreme Court has both original and appellate jurisdiction, depending on the case in question. What is not clear is whether writs of mandamus can be issued by the Court under both types of jurisdiction, or only under appellate jurisdiction. The text could be interpreted in favor of either outcome, mainly due to the ambiguous use of one single semicolon.
So, it sounds like Marbury—and therefore Federalists at large—won the case, right? Yes, the Court could have issued the writ in a case under original jurisdiction.
State is a party or 2 the case involves foreign ambassadors, ministers, or consuls. Adams then nominated his Secretary of State and close advisor, John Marshall , to fill the spot.
Nevertheless, just a week after his nomination, the U. Senate unanimously confirmed him for the top spot on the court. Adams still had two months left in his term and needed help, so he asked Marshall to do both the Secretary of State and Chief Justice jobs at once. But in , it might not have seemed such a big deal. Adams, meanwhile, rushed to fill as many other judicial positions as possible before his political enemy, Thomas Jefferson , took office.
After the Senate approved his choices the next day, Marshall was assigned to finalize the paperwork and deliver the commissions. He told his own Secretary of State, James Madison , to withhold the four undelivered commissions.
Marbury sued to get his job. But instead he went directly to the Supreme Court and petitioned for a writ of mandamus , ordering Madison to give them their commissions. On February 10, , the Supreme Court convened to hear the case. The case hinged on three issues. First, did Marbury and the other appointees have a right to their commissions?
Second, if they did have a right that had been violated, did federal law provide a remedy? Finally, was an order from the U. Supreme Court the right remedy to solve the problem? Marshall, who presided over the case despite having played a role in the events, found himself in a difficult position. But if the court ruled in favor of the Jefferson Administration, it would look as if it had given in to political pressure.
The solution to the problem was an ingenious one. The commissions were not delivered, however, and when President Jefferson assumed office March 5, , he ordered James Madison, his Secretary of State, not to deliver them. William Marbury, one of the appointees, then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus , or legal order, compelling Madison to show cause why he should not receive his commission.
In resolving the case, Chief Justice Marshall answered three questions. First, did Marbury have a right to the writ for which he petitioned? Second, did the laws of the United States allow the courts to grant Marbury such a writ? Third, if they did, could the Supreme Court issue such a writ?
With regard to the first question, Marshall ruled that Marbury had been properly appointed in accordance with procedures established by law, and that he therefore had a right to the writ. Secondly, because Marbury had a legal right to his commission, the law must afford him a remedy. The Supreme Court issued its opinion on February 24, Search this Guide Search. Marbury v. Supreme Court decision Marbury v.
Madison established the principle of judicial review. This guide provides access to digital materials at the Library of Congress, external websites, and a print bibliography.
0コメント