lack Letter
PALSU.S. Supreme Court (Chief Justice Marshall, unanimous), 1803draftborradorunverifiedsin verificar

Marbury v. Madison

5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)

An undelivered commission and the Court that lost the battle to win the war

In one lineEn una línea
Courts must apply the Constitution over a conflicting statute, so the Supreme Court could not use a law that unconstitutionally expanded its original jurisdiction.Los tribunales deben aplicar la Constitución sobre una ley contraria, así que la Corte Suprema no pudo usar una ley que ampliaba inconstitucionalmente su jurisdicción originaria.
RuleRegla
The Constitution is paramount law; an act of Congress repugnant to it is void; and it is emphatically the province of the judiciary to say what the law is, which includes refusing to enforce an unconstitutional statute in a case before the court.
Why this case is herePor qué está aquí este caso
Assigned for the September 25 class on the Supreme Court (chapter 5, up to note 10). It is the source of judicial review: the power of courts to refuse to apply a statute that conflicts with the Constitution. Everything later in the course (Brown, Loving, Heart of Atlanta) assumes this power.
Procedural posturePostura procesal
Marbury filed an original action in the Supreme Court asking for a writ of mandamus ordering Secretary of State Madison to deliver his commission as justice of the peace; the Court held it lacked jurisdiction to issue the writ and dismissed.

Facts

In the last days of John Adams’s presidency, Congress created new judgeships and Adams appointed Federalists to fill them; the Senate confirmed and Adams signed the commissions, but some, including William Marbury’s commission as a justice of the peace for the District of Columbia, were not delivered before Jefferson took office. Jefferson ordered his Secretary of State, James Madison, to withhold them.

Procedural posture

Marbury and others asked the Supreme Court directly, under section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, for a writ of mandamus compelling delivery. The Court heard the case in its original jurisdiction and dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Issue

Whether Marbury had a right to the commission, whether the law afforded him a remedy, and whether the Supreme Court could issue that remedy in an original action.

Holding

Marbury had a vested right to the commission and mandamus was the proper remedy, but the Supreme Court could not issue it: section 13, read to authorize original mandamus against federal officers, conflicted with Article III’s definition of the Court’s original jurisdiction, and a statute repugnant to the Constitution cannot be applied by the courts.

Reasoning

The commission was complete when signed and sealed; delivery was a ministerial act. For every legal right there must be a remedy, and courts may order an executive officer to perform a duty the law imposes, as opposed to reviewing discretionary political acts. But Article III gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction only in cases involving ambassadors and states, and appellate jurisdiction otherwise; Congress cannot add to the original list. Faced with a statute and the Constitution pointing in different directions, a court must prefer the Constitution: it is the supreme, written law, the judicial power extends to cases arising under it, and judges swear to support it. It is the judiciary’s province to say what the law is.

Rule (own words)

Judicial review in one sentence: when a statute and the Constitution conflict in a case, the court applies the Constitution and sets the statute aside for that case. Everything else (precedent, general effects, the Court’s prestige) is what turns that case-by-case power into a system.

What-ifs

  • If Marbury had sued in a lower federal court, the jurisdictional problem would not have arisen and the Court might have had to confront Jefferson directly.
  • If Congress had instead removed a subject from the Court’s appellate jurisdiction, Article III expressly allows exceptions and regulations, a very different question.
  • If a state statute conflicts with the federal Constitution, the Supremacy Clause makes the answer even clearer and state judges are bound.

Class notes

The professor recommended Revolutionary Summer (Ellis) for the period and the Lincoln film for the later citizenship material. Keep the three Marbury questions as a template: right, remedy, power of this court.

Likely follow-upsRepreguntas probables

What were the three questions Marshall asked, in order?
Does Marbury have a right to the commission? (Yes, once signed and sealed.) Do the laws give him a remedy? (Yes, mandamus against an official with a ministerial duty.) Can this Court issue it? (No: section 13 of the Judiciary Act purported to add to the Court's original jurisdiction, which Article III fixes.)
Why is the decision politically clever?
Jefferson's administration could not defy an order that was never issued, yet the opinion established that the Court decides what the Constitution means. Marshall gave up the small prize to secure the large one.
Where is judicial review in the text of the Constitution?
Nowhere expressly. Marshall derives it from the written constitution's supremacy (art. VI), the judicial power over cases arising under the Constitution (art. III) and the judges' oath.
Mexican comparison?
Mexico's judicial review is concentrated and largely channeled through amparo, controversias and acciones de inconstitucionalidad, with general effects only in defined cases; the American version is diffuse: any court, any case, with precedent doing the generalizing.
judicial revieworiginal jurisdictionwrit of mandamusSupremacy Clause / preemptionseparation of powers

AssignedAsignado: 2026-09-25

Read the public opinionLeer la opinión (texto público). SourceFuente: Own brief from the public opinion; verify details against the opinion..