SCOTUS
Marbury
DecidedFeb 24, 1803
Unanimousdecision
Source: CourtListener.
Supreme Court establishes judicial review: courts can strike down laws that violate the Constitution
Impact10/10
What it does
The Court established that it is the judiciary's job to say what the law is, and that any law passed by Congress that conflicts with the Constitution is void and unenforceable. The Court also ruled that a section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 — which gave the Supreme Court the power to issue certain orders directly as a first-step court — conflicted with the Constitution's limits on the Court's original jurisdiction (meaning cases it can hear first, without going through a lower court), and was therefore invalid. As a result, the Court declined to order the delivery of Marbury's commission, not because he lacked a right to it, but because the Court lacked the constitutional authority to issue that type of order in this case.
Who benefits
Federal courts, which gained the recognized authority to review acts of Congress and refuse to enforce those that conflict with the Constitution. Individuals whose legal rights are violated by government officials performing non-discretionary duties assigned by law.
Who is affected
Congress, whose acts are now subject to being declared void by the judiciary if found to conflict with the Constitution. Executive branch officials performing duties assigned by law, who may be subject to court orders when those duties affect individual legal rights.
Practical impact
Federal courts — including the Supreme Court — now have the established authority to review acts of Congress and refuse to apply any that conflict with the Constitution, a power known as judicial review. Executive branch officials who are assigned specific, non-discretionary duties by law can be compelled by courts to perform those duties when individual legal rights are at stake. Marbury himself did not receive his commission, because the Court held it lacked the constitutional authority to issue the order he requested through the route he used.
Majority — Marshall
The Court reasoned that when the President signs a commission and the Secretary of State affixes the official seal, the appointment is legally complete — the appointee has a vested legal right to the office that the executive can no longer take back. The Court further held that where a specific legal duty is assigned to a government official and an individual's rights depend on that duty being performed, the courts have the authority to provide a remedy; only purely political or discretionary acts of the executive are beyond judicial review. However, the Court found that the section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that allowed the Supreme Court to issue a mandamus (a court order commanding a government official to act) as a court of first impression conflicted with Article III of the Constitution, which limits the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to specific types of cases. The Court reasoned that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that if a law passed by Congress conflicts with it, the Constitution must prevail — otherwise, written constitutions would be meaningless. It is therefore the courts' duty to identify and apply the Constitution over any conflicting law, since judges swear an oath to uphold the Constitution and the Constitution itself is listed as the supreme law of the land.
Constitutional question
Does the Supreme Court have the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it? And separately, did William Marbury have a legal right to receive his judicial commission that a court could enforce?