Marbury v. Madison, EXPLAINED [AP Gov Required Cases]

Summary

In this video, the host explores the landmark 1803 Supreme Court case, *Marbury v. Madison*, which established the principle of judicial review. The case arose after President John Adams appointed Federalist judges, but some commissions were left undelivered when Thomas Jefferson took office. Marbury, one of the appointees, sued Secretary of State James Madison to have his commission delivered. Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that while Marbury had a right to the commission, the court could not issue a writ of mandamus because it would conflict with the Constitution. This case empowered the judiciary by affirming its role in striking down unconstitutional laws.

Takeaways

• 😀 Marbury v. Madison (1803) is one of the most significant Supreme Court cases in history, establishing the principle of judicial review.
• 😀 The case arose after President John Adams, in his final days, appointed several Federalist judges, but some commissions were left undelivered when Thomas Jefferson took office.
• 😀 William Marbury, one of the undelivered appointees, sued James Madison to have his commission delivered via a writ of mandamus.
• 😀 A writ of mandamus is a court order that forces an official to fulfill their legal duties, in this case, delivering Marbury's commission.
• 😀 Article 3 of the Constitution outlines the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, which includes original and appellate jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction applies in specific cases, such as those involving states or foreign ambassadors.
• 😀 Chief Justice John Marshall presented three key questions for the court: 1) Did Marbury have the legal right to his commission? 2) Was a writ of mandamus the proper legal tool to get it? 3) Did the court have the authority to issue the writ?
• 😀 The court ruled that Marbury had a legal right to the commission and that a writ of mandamus was a proper legal remedy.
• 😀 However, the court ruled that it did not have the authority to issue the writ, as the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with Article 3 of the Constitution regarding the court's jurisdiction.
• 😀 Chief Justice Marshall declared that Article 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which expanded the court’s jurisdiction to include issuing writs of mandamus in original jurisdiction cases, was unconstitutional.
• 😀 The Marbury v. Madison case established judicial review, granting the Supreme Court the power to declare laws unconstitutional, thus becoming the final interpreter of the Constitution.

Q & A

What is the significance of Marbury v. Madison (1803)?

Marbury v. Madison is arguably the most significant case in Supreme Court history because it established the principle of judicial review, allowing the Supreme Court to declare laws unconstitutional and solidifying its role as the final interpreter of the Constitution.

What was the political context surrounding the Marbury v. Madison case?

The case took place during a time of intense political rivalry between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. Federalist President John Adams appointed numerous Federalist judges in his final days, trying to maintain influence as he lost the election of 1800 to Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican.

What led William Marbury to sue James Madison?

William Marbury, one of the appointed judges, was angry that he had not received his commission, a document confirming his judicial appointment. He sued James Madison, Thomas Jefferson's secretary of state, demanding that Madison deliver the undelivered commissions through a writ of mandamus.

What is a writ of mandamus, and why was it important in this case?

A writ of mandamus is a court order directing an official to perform a duty they are legally obligated to perform. Marbury requested this writ to compel Madison to deliver his commission.

What role does Article 3 of the Constitution play in this case?

Article 3 of the Constitution outlines the powers of the judicial branch and the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. It specifies the types of cases the Supreme Court can hear, including those involving states or foreign ambassadors, but it does not include the power to issue writs of mandamus.

What is the difference between original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction?

Original jurisdiction refers to cases the Supreme Court hears for the first time, while appellate jurisdiction involves cases that come from lower federal courts. The Marbury v. Madison case was an example of original jurisdiction.

Why did Chief Justice John Marshall rule that the Supreme Court could not issue the writ of mandamus in this case?

Marshall ruled that Article 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which granted the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus in original jurisdiction cases, conflicted with Article 3 of the Constitution, which did not explicitly grant such authority. He deemed Article 13 unconstitutional.

How did Marbury v. Madison lead to the establishment of judicial review?

By declaring the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, Marshall established the principle of judicial review, which empowered the Supreme Court to invalidate laws that conflict with the Constitution and positioned the Court as the final authority on constitutional interpretation.

What did Chief Justice Marshall's ruling ultimately mean for Marbury's case?

Although Marbury was legally entitled to his commission, the Court ruled that it lacked the authority to compel Madison to deliver it. Marbury did not receive his commission, but the case set the precedent for judicial review.

What is the lasting impact of Marbury v. Madison on the American legal system?

Marbury v. Madison established the Supreme Court's authority to interpret the Constitution and review the constitutionality of laws, a power that has had a profound and enduring impact on American jurisprudence and the balance of power among the branches of government.