This article is written by Easy Panda. The present article provides an in-depth study of the case Marbury vs. Madison (1803), along with the facts, issues raised, and rationale behind the judgement. The article also explains the laws involved and provides an analysis of the judgement given.
Table of Contents
Introduction
“Judicial Review has developed as a way for individuals to challenge decisions taken by the state.” – Chris Grayling
Judicial review refers to the power of the judiciary to review and assess the validity of any law or order passed by the legislation of a country. It is a kind of idea, according to the U.S. system, that the acts of the executive and legislative bodies of the government are subjected to review and possible abrogation by the judiciary. It is a power enjoyed by the courts to declare any law as unconstitutional if it violates or is against the basic principles of the Constitution. There is no such specific section present in the constitution which particularly discusses the power of judicial review.The case of Marbury vs. Madison is the first case in world history from which the concept of this doctrine arose. It was the first Supreme court case where there was a decision made to shoot down the act of Congress as invalid and unconstitutional.
There was a famous line given by the Chief Justice John Marshall: “It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.”
Details of the case
Case Name: Marbury vs. Madison (1803)
Case Type: Constitution case
Equivalent citations: 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed.60 (1803)
Acts involved: Constitution of United States and Judiciary Act of 1789
Important provisions: Article 1 and 3 of the US Constitution and Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789
Court: US Supreme Court
Bench: Chief Justice John Marshall, along with Associate Justices William Cushing, William Paterosn, Samuel Chase, Bushrod Washington and Alfred Moore
Date of judgement: 24 February, 1803
Laws involved
Judiciary Act of 1789
Section 13 of the Judiciary Act
Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 states that the Supreme Court of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all conflicts of civil nature where the state is a party, except the cases between the state and its citizens. In cases where the conflict is between a state and citizens of other states or aliens, the state will have original jurisdiction. The Section further states that in matters involving any suit or proceeding against the ambassadors, public ministers or their domestic servants, the court will have exclusive jurisdiction over those matters too. The trial in every such case will be held by a jury. The Supreme Court will also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit court and the courts of several states. The Supreme Court has power under this section to issue a writ of prohibition to district courts where the conflict is related to admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. Along with the writ of prohibition, the Supreme Court can issue a writ of mandamus in cases involving principals and usages of law to any court appointed or any person holding office under the authority of the United States.
United States Constitution
Article 1 of the US Constitution
Article 1 of the US Constitution talks about the outline of the legislative branch of the US government, i.e., Congress. The major part of this Article talks about the separation of power between the different branches of government, the election process of the Senators and other representatives, the lawmaking process and the power of Congress. This Article contains 10 sections. A brief overview of every Section of this Article is mentioned below.
Section 1 – it states that every legislative power will be available to the Congress, which shall comprise the Senate and House of Representatives.
Section 2 – it talks about the membership requirement for the House of Representatives. This Section prescribes minimum qualifications and their tenure.
Section 3 – this Section talks about the appointment of senators from every state and their voting rights.
Section 4 – this Section talks about the time, place and manner of holding elections for the Senators and the Representatives.
Section 5 – this Section prescribes rules for the legislative proceedings of the Senate and House of Representatives.
Section 6 – this Section talks about the privileges and benefits to which the Senators and representatives are entitled after the performance of their duties.
Section 7 – it states that every bill related to revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives. However, the Senate has the power to propose amendments to any other bill.
Section 8 – it talks about the power of Congress with respect to the imposition and collection of taxes for the welfare and defence of the nation.
Section 9 – this talks about the prohibition of Congress from legislating in certain areas, such as the importation of slaves before 1808.
Sectio 10 – this Section prohibits the State from keeping any troops, ships, etc. without the consent of Congress.
Article 3 of the US Constitution
Article 3 of the US Constitution talks about the establishment of a federal judiciary. The Article contains 3 Sections, which are discussed in brief.
Section 1 – this is the vesting clause of the Constitution, which states that the judicial power of the United States will be vested in one Supreme Court and in other lower courts, which will be established from time to time by Congress.
Section 2 – this Section talks about the jurisdiction of the court and states that the trial of the cases will be held by the jury, except in cases of impeachment.
Section 3 – this Section talks about the crime of treason, which is defined as the involvement of any person in going to war against the United States or giving aid in doing so to an enemy.
Background of case
It was written over 200 years ago that the language in the decision can be difficult to analyse for modern readers. It is also very difficult to extract its importance without knowing the circumstances under which it was decided. Auspiciously, the elemental facts of the case are interesting, at least if one likes political chicanery involving the Founding Fathers. Politics at the time of 1800 were contentious in nature.
The case of Marbury vs. Madison is a landmark in the history of American Judiciary. The case involved a dispute between the federalist leader John Adams and Democratic republican leader Thomas Jefferson. The then Chief Justice, John Marshall, presided over the case and gave a judgement that opened doors for the concept of judicial review in America and for the world.
Facts of the case
The facts of the case started in the late 1790 and early 1800s, when American political life revolved around Federalist leader John Adams and Democratic Republican leader Thomas Jefferson. The democratic republicans defeated the federalists in the Congressional and Presidential elections of November 1800 but in spite of the loss, the federalists held the position until March 1801.
With the extra time for which the Federalists held the position, they created several new judicial positions to which the Federalist President John Adams attempted to appoint his close allies. These appointments were done to influence the Democratic Republic government when they were not in power. These appointments of the so-called temporary judges sparked controversy in America.
In the meantime, Oliver Ellsworth, the Chief Justice of America, also resigned from his post due to health issues shortly after the presidential elections. John Adams saw this as an opportunity to fill the vacant position by appointing one of his allies. He asked John Jay to fill the vacant position. John Jay, who had previously served in the office of Chief Justice but had resigned from his post to become the Governor of New York in 1795, turned the position down.
Later, John Adams appointed Marshall, who was his Secretary of State to the post of Chief Justice. The Senate was quick to appoint Marshall to the post. However, even after his appointment as Chief Justice, he continued to serve as secretary of the state. The federalist Congress adopted the Circuit Courts Act on 13 February 1801. This legislation brought changes to the federal judiciary by replacing Supreme Court Justices of circuit duty and reducing the number of Supreme Court judges to five from six. It also established six new circuit courts with sixteen judges. These judges were appointed by John Adams and were quickly approved by Congress. All these events happened before Democratic Republican leader Thomas Jefferson could take over the office.
On 2nd March 1801, a day before his tenure as President, John Adams appointed William Marbury to the newly created post of justice of peace in the District of Columbia. The Senate approved his appointment the next day. Adam duly signed the document stating the commission of Marbury and fixed an official seal to the document.
Marshall’s brother James was supposed to deliver the commissions to the judges appointed under the Circuit Courts Act. However, while delivering the commissions, when he found that he could not carry every document, he left several documents, including Marbury’s commission letter.
Later, when Thomas Jefferson assumed office, he ordered his new secretary of state, James Madison, to hold up all the commissions that were not delivered. This included the commission letter from William Marbury.
On 21 December, 1801 William Marbury filed a suit in the Supreme Court, seeking a writ of mandamus to force James Madison to deliver the commission letter, stating that he had no right to withhold the appointment.
Issues raised
The following issues were raised in the case of Marbury vs. Madison, (1803)–
- Is William Marbury entitled to judicial commission?
- Does the law provide any remedy for William Marbury?
- Was the writ of Mandamus an appropriate remedy from the Supreme Court?
Judgement of the case
After the matter went to the Supreme Court, James Madison declined to appear in court on the belief that the Court did not have any authority to ask him to give Marbury his commission. So the court only heard the arguments of Marbury, who was represented by Charles Lee, who had earlier served as an Attorney General under John Adams.
John Marshall was in charge of writing an opinion for the unanimous court. He agreed with the first two issues regarding the entitlement of judicial commission to Marbury and the provision for providing a remedy to him. The Court held that once the commission has been signed and sealed, Marbury has been appointed as a judge. The delivery is just a mere formality that is bound to be performed by James Madison. With regard to the third issue, the Court found that it has the power to issue the writ of Mandamus as it is conferred to it by the Judiciary Act of 1789. However, John Marshall opined that this grant of power exceeded the Court’s jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution.
Rationale behind the judgement
Does William Marbury have the right to obtain a commission as a judge
The court gave the following reasoning with regard to the first issue of the entitlement of judicial commission to William Marbury. The right of entitlement of the judicial commission originated after the Circuit Court Act was passed by Congress in February 1801, which was concerned with the District of Columbia. The 11th section of this law talks about the establishment of Justices of Peace, whose judges shall be appointed by the President of the United States for a period of five years. It was clear from the affidavit provided that William Marbury was appointed as a Justice of Peace by John Adams, the then President of the United States with a seal attached to it. But he never got the commission.
In order to determine his claim for entitlement of commission, it was necessary for the court to check that he had been duly appointed to the office. Section 2 of Article II of the American Constitution deals with the power of the President to appoint ambassadors and other public ministers of the United States whose appointments are not mentioned in the Constitution.
Section 3 of Article II of the US Constitution deals with the commission of the officers of the United States. It requires the Secretary of State to keep the seal of the United States, which will make out, record and affix the seal to all civil commissions of the United States which are appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate or solely by the President. Though this clause of the Constitution has only been applied to the officers who were appointed by the President itself, its legislative power cannot be denied under any circumstances.
The above mentioned provisions talk about three distinct operations, i.e., nomination, appointment, and commission.
Now the question before the Court was whether Section 2 and Section 3 of Article II of the US Constitution would be conclusive in nature. The court gave the answer that every act of the President that shows that he has followed all the protocols does not require any further evidence. The last act of the President is signing the commission, after which he acts on the advice and consent of the Senate. The officer is appointed only after the Senate approves the nomination.
After the commission is signed, it is the duty of the Secretary to hand it over to the concerned person. This duty is guided by the law and not by the will of the President. It should be understood that the formality of affixing the seal is necessary not only for the validity of the commission but also for the completion of the appointment. The court agreed that no other formality is needed on the part of the government.
The court found that the commission contains the date and salary of the officer and is not a document that provides the transmission or acceptance of his post. When any person who is appointed to any office refuses to accept the office, a new person is appointed in the place of the person who has declined to accept the office and not in the place of the original person who had previously held the office and had created the original vacancy.
The Court finally decided that when a commission has been signed by the President and an appointment is made, the commission is said to be complete as soon as the seal of the United States has been affixed to it by the Secretary of State. This gave Marbury the right to hold the office for five years, irrespective of the opinion of the executive. The withholding of commission is an act that is deemed by the Court not warranted by law, but is a violation of the legal rights of William Marbury.
Does William Marbury have any legal recourse
The reasoning of the Court with respect to this particular issue—whether any remedy is available to William Marbury if his rights have been violated is stated further. The Court found that the basic feature of civil liberty is to claim protection from the laws whenever there has been a violation of any law. The foremost duty of any government is to provide that protection. The Court took the example of Great Britain, where the king is sued in the respectful form of a petition and he never fails to comply with the judgement of the court.
The Court also referred to the commentary of Blackstone in his third volume, where he stated two cases in which the remedy was given by a simple operation of law. He said that in every case, there is a general and undisputable rule that whenever any legal right is violated, there is a legal remedy by suit or by law to compensate for it. He goes on to say that such injuries that are cognizable by the courts of common law and do not fall under the ambit of ecclesiastical, military or maritime tribunals have a settled principle in law that they must provide a remedy.
The United States government is known as a government of laws and not of men. If the law does not provide any remedy for the infringement of vested legal rights, it will certainly lose its status. It is the duty of the court to inquire whether there is any circumstance that can prevent the injured party from getting legal benefits.
The Court found that the American Constitution has given some political power to the President, which he can use at his own discretion to perform. He is authorised to appoint certain officers who can help him in the performance of his duty. These officers act according to the orders of the President. The acts of these officers are considered to be the acts of the President. The Court, through this statement, meant to say that though the heads of the departments are political agents of the executive to execute their will, whenever a specific duty is assigned by law to them and some individual’s right is dependent on the performance of their duty, this is totally clear that the individual has a right to claim against them if he considers himself injured by their performance or non-performance of their duty.
In the present case, the power of appointing the Senate and any other officer is a political power which is exercised by the President according to his own discretion. If, by virtue of law the officer is removed by the President, then a new appointment may be immediately made and the rights of such officer is ceased. But the fact can not be changed that he possessed such rights. The question of whether a right is available or not is decided by the court. Mr. Marbury had taken an oath as a magistrate and therefore was required to act accordingly.
The court was of the opinion that the signing of the commission of Mr. Marbury as a Justice of Peace was done by the President of the United States. The seal of the United States affixed by the Secretary of State is conclusive proof of the appointment. Mr. Marbury has a legal right to the commission and the refusal to deliver such a commission is a violation of the legal right for which the law of the country provides him a remedy.
Was the Supreme Court’s writ of mandamus a proper remedy
With regard to the third issue of whether Mandamus was an appropriate remedy by the Supreme Court, the Court looked at the definition of Mandamus in the third volume of commentary by Blackstone. According to Blackstone, Mandamus is a command issued in the name of the king from the court of his bench to direct any person, corporation or lower court within his jurisdiction to do some particular kind of thing related to their official duty that is consonant to right and justice.
The Court determined the use of this writ through the case of King vs. Baker, (1994). where Lord Mansfield said that whenever there is a right to execute an office, perform a service or execute a law that is a matter of public concern or is related to profit, and the person is kept out of the possession of or is dispossessed of such right, then, due to the lack of any specific remedy, the court declares the writ of Mandamus for the fulfilment of justice. The Court further went on to say that in the absence of any specific legal remedy, the writ of Mandamus can be issued for justice and good governance.
Apart from the authorities, the Court relied on various other sources to prove the usage of this writ in various other circumstances. The Court found that in this case, Mr. Marbury was the proper person because his rights had been violated and no proper legal remedy was left to him.
The Court analysed the requirements for this case. The Court looked upon an Act passed in 1792 which directed the secretary at war to put the names of disabled soldiers on the list of pension holders. Those soldiers were required to be reported to him by the circuit courts. Though the duty imposed on the court was deemed to be unconstitutional, some of the judges executed the law in the character of commissioners. Now the question arose that the persons reported by the judges acting as commissioners are entitled to the benefits. The Congress further passed an act in 1793 after making amendments to the Act of 1792 which made the duty of secretary of war with the help of attorney general to take such steps which could be necessary for the adjudication of the Supreme Court of the United States on the validity of an appointment claimed under the Act. After this legislation was passed, the writ of Mandamus was directed to the secretary at war, commanding him to put every person on the pension list whose names were mentioned in the report made by the judges. This proved that the issuance of a writ of mandamus for the violation of any legal right is used by the highest court of the United States.
The Court was earlier in doubt whether the mandamus would be a proper remedy for Mr. Marbury for the withholding of his commission. But since the applicant was entitled to the position, the court’s uncertainty was resolved. Mr. Marbury was supposed to join the office either by obtaining the commission or a copy of it from the record.
The court found that the legislation that establishes the judicial courts of the United States gave it the power to issue the writ of Mandamus in cases where, by the principles and usage of law, any person holding the office under the authority of the United States is a public official or corporation, tribunal, any inferior courts or government. The secretary of state is a person who holds the office under the authority of the United States and if the court is not authorised to issue the writ to such an officer, it can only be because of the unconstitutionality of the law.
The distribution of power in the United States declares that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in all cases that involve ambassadors, other public ministers, counsels or cases where a state is a party. Except for the cases mentioned, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction.
In the present case, Marbury’s case was in no way coming under the purview of an appeal from a lower court, so he had to prove to the Court that it was within the Court’s original jurisdiction. However, William Marbury was not able to prove the same and therefore, the Court was of the opinion that Congress could not give the Court powers that were not included in the Constitution. So the part of the Judiciary Act that gave the court the power to hear original suits through the writ of mandamus is unconstitutional.
Critical analysis of the case
The case of Marbury vs. Madison is one of the landmarks in the history of the American legal system. However the case can be subject to certain criticism, such as the court should first look upon the jurisdiction of the case. The court should first resolve the preliminary question of whether it has the authority to try the case. Marbury has approached the court on the basis of Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which, according to him, granted power to the court to issue the writ of mandamus. If the court in the first instance solved this issue, the matter would not have proceeded at this extent.
The second criticism is that the Chief Justice, John Marshall, should not have adjudicated this case because he was involved in the background of the case. The Court took time to decide whether Marbury’s commission was signed and sealed before it was withdrawn to determine his vested interest. However, it was clear from the fact that Marbury’s appointment and commission were known to Chief Justice John Marshall and the commission was planned to be furnished to Marbury by his younger brother James, who had been in the office of Secretary of State.
Another criticism of the case is with respect to the process that John Marshall took to reach the conclusion that the US Supreme Court has superiority over other branches of the US government. In today’s time the American courts follow the principle of constitutional avoidance, which means that if any interpretation of a law raises concern about some constitutional problems, they look for an alternative interpretation to avoid those problems. John Marshall avoided these problems through different rulings, which delayed the proceeding. If the court had ruled that Marbury did not have any right until he was commissioned or vice versa, the court would not have reached the constitutional issues of the case.
Indian perspective on this case
The concept of judicial review in India has been accepted from the United States Constitution which is considered as one of the sources of the Constitution of India. The doctrine of judicial review provides power to the Supreme Court of India to strike down any law or provision made by the legislature of a state if it violates the basic structure of the constitution. This concept was interpreted and adopted in India for the very first time through the landmark case of Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India (1951) where the matter was heard by a six judge bench. Out of those six judges, five judges were against the amendment of the essential rights under the Indian Constitution. In this case, a challenge was made to the 1st Amendment Act (1951) on the grounds that the “Right to Property” was restricted. The Supreme Court in this case denied such an argument and held that this could not be implemented since the fundamental rights under Article 13 cannot be concise.
Whereas, in the case of Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973), out of seven judges, six judges gave the majority opinion that the parliament’s flexible influence has and at all allocation of the Constitution can be amended and in this case they overruled the Golaknath case. In this case, the controversy of the Golaknath case was decided, and the court still agreed that the parliament is not restricted from amending the Constitution, but it also put an admonition of the doctrine of the basic structure. In this case, the Supreme Court held that essential rights can’t be altered by such a method, which will add to the fundamental construction of the Constitution. In this case, the court observed that the constitutional amendments are to be made by keeping the basic structure of the Constitution in mind.
In the case of Golaknath vs. State of Punjab (1967), the question was raised whether an amendment is a law and whether fundamental rights can be amended or not. The court held that the Constitution can’t be amended by the parliament just to take away the rights provided in Part III of the Indian Constitution. And this led to the passage of the 24th Amendment Act (1971), which unrestricted the parliament’s constitutional powers. Unlike the above mentioned cases, there are many more cases where the matter of judicial review was discussed in a detailed manner.
After the case of Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narain (1975), judicial review is considered a basic structure of the constitution. However, the judicial review is subject to certain drawbacks, such as resulting in delays in the implementation of policies and weakening the trust and faith of the people in the government.
The scope of judicial review in India is limited as compared to the USA because judicial review in the USA is based on due process of the law, while Indian judicial review is based on the procedural establishment by law. The due process of the law can claim laws violative of these rights as void not only on a substantive ground of being unlawful, but also on a procedural ground of being unreasonable. Whereas Indian Supreme Court, while determining the validity of law, examines only the basis of substantial grounds, i.e., whether the law is within the powers of the authority concerned to it or not.
Conclusion
The case of Marbury vs. Madison had a lasting impact on the relationship between the US judiciary and Congress. This case was the first in history where the Supreme Court had used its power of judicial review against an act of Congress. The verdict of Marshall was widely applauded at a time when the judiciary was under constant pressure by Thomas Jefferson and his followers. Though this power was not specifically mentioned in the United States Constitution, many Federalists were in support of this concept.
Even after the newly declared power of judicial review, this concept was not used in America for a long time. However, with the passing of time, this concept gained importance and has now become one of the fundamental principles of democracy. India too adopted the concept of judicial review from America and used it for the first time in the famous case of Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India, (1951).
Frequently asked questions (FAQs)
What was the ideology of the Federalist leaders and Democratic Republican leaders?
The Federalist Party was in favour of centralisation, modernization and industrialization of power by creating a strong central government which could promote economic growth and upheld friendly relations with Great Britain instead of Revolutionary France. On the other hand, the Democratic Republican Party focused on the government as a republic of individual states and believed that the central government should not have all the power; instead, the state governments should have the power to make their own decisions.
What are the limitations of judicial review in India?
The scope of judicial review in India is very broad. However, there are certain limitations to it. The limitation is in the form of certain privileges and immunities that are given to the President, Governor and Judges of the Supreme Court and High Court unless they have performed any act in their personal capacity.
Is judicial review a fundamental right in India?
The term judicial review is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution of India. However, indirect references are made under various Articles such as Article 13, which states that any law which is inconsistent with the fundamental right will be considered void. Article 32 and Article 226 state that any individual can approach the Supreme Court and High Court, respectively, in cases of violation of their fundamental rights. Article 142 further provides that the Supreme Court has the power to give justice in cases where the law does not provide any remedy.
References
- https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/
- https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/marbury-v-madison
- https://landmarkcases.org/cases/marbury-v-madison/
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.
