Marbury v. Madison brief
WILLIAM MARBURY V. JAMES MADISON, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE UNITED STATES 1803
5 U.S. 137, U.S. Supreme Court, 11-24 Feb. 1803
Facts:
The PETITIONER, William Marbury, was appointed by outgoing president of the United States John Adams as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia. Thomas Jefferson, the newly elected president ordered not to deliver commissions to newly appointed judges, including the PETITIONER, making him unable to assume office. PETITIONER asked the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus (based on the Judiciary Act of 1789, which granted the Supreme Court jurisdiction over petitions for writs of mandamus) forcing the RESPONDENT, Secretary of State James Madison, to deliver his commission.
Issue:
- Does the PETITIONER have the right to the commission?
- Do the laws of the United States of America give the PETITIONER a legal remedy?
- Is asking the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus a correct legal course of action?
Ruling:
PETITIONER has the right to the commission. The laws of the United States of America give the PETITIONER a legal remedy. Asking the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus is incorrect legal course of action. Application for writ of mandamus denied. PETITIONER does not get the commission.
Reasoning:
Court ruled that the RESPONDENT violated its ministerial functions required by law by not delivering the commission, therefore the law provided the PETITIONER a remedy. In response to the third issue,
Court ruled that while writ of mandamus was the correct judicial means to order an official of the United States to do something required of him by law (in this case, deliver a commission), upon closer examination of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court provided by the Judiciary act of 1789 (specifically, Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that authorizes the Supreme Court to issue writ of mandamus) the Court decided that it is in conflict with Article III of the Constitution. Court ruled that Congress does not
5 U.S. 137, U.S. Supreme Court, 11-24 Feb. 1803
Facts:
The PETITIONER, William Marbury, was appointed by outgoing president of the United States John Adams as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia. Thomas Jefferson, the newly elected president ordered not to deliver commissions to newly appointed judges, including the PETITIONER, making him unable to assume office. PETITIONER asked the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus (based on the Judiciary Act of 1789, which granted the Supreme Court jurisdiction over petitions for writs of mandamus) forcing the RESPONDENT, Secretary of State James Madison, to deliver his commission.
Issue:
- Does the PETITIONER have the right to the commission?
- Do the laws of the United States of America give the PETITIONER a legal remedy?
- Is asking the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus a correct legal course of action?
Ruling:
PETITIONER has the right to the commission. The laws of the United States of America give the PETITIONER a legal remedy. Asking the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus is incorrect legal course of action. Application for writ of mandamus denied. PETITIONER does not get the commission.
Reasoning:
Court ruled that the RESPONDENT violated its ministerial functions required by law by not delivering the commission, therefore the law provided the PETITIONER a remedy. In response to the third issue,
Court ruled that while writ of mandamus was the correct judicial means to order an official of the United States to do something required of him by law (in this case, deliver a commission), upon closer examination of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court provided by the Judiciary act of 1789 (specifically, Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that authorizes the Supreme Court to issue writ of mandamus) the Court decided that it is in conflict with Article III of the Constitution. Court ruled that Congress does not