You met judicial review in Civics and Government and learned to brief a case in Introduction to Law. Now read the case that started it all the way a law student does: carefully, and for exactly what it holds.
The facts
In the last days of John Adams's presidency in March 1801, the Senate confirmed dozens of new justices of the peace for the District of Columbia. William Marbury was one. His commission was signed and sealed but not delivered before Thomas Jefferson took office, and Jefferson's Secretary of State, James Madison, withheld it. Marbury asked the Supreme Court directly, in its original jurisdiction, for a writ of mandamus ordering Madison to deliver it. He relied on Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which the Court read as authorizing such writs.
Why it works
Key idea
Worked example: Why the order of questions mattered
- By finding that Marbury had a right and a remedy, Marshall said the Jefferson administration had acted unlawfully.
- By then denying jurisdiction, he gave the administration nothing to defy: the Court ordered nothing.
- And by striking down Section 13, the Court claimed the power of judicial review in a case where it gave up power over this dispute.
Answer: Historians often describe it as a strategic opinion: it asserted the Court's authority while avoiding a confrontation it might have lost. (Critics note that a court without jurisdiction usually should not reach the merits.)
Worked example: Finding the holding
- Look at what the Court had to decide: whether to apply Section 13 in Marbury's case.
- It held that a court may not enforce, in a case before it, a statute that conflicts with the Constitution.
- Claims that the Court's readings bind other officials came later, most strongly in Cooper v. Aaron (1958).
Answer: Marbury holds that courts must apply the Constitution over a conflicting statute when deciding a case. It does not by itself say the Court is the only or final interpreter.
Common mistake
Not everyone welcomed the power. Brutus warned in 1788 (essays XI to XV) that judges serving for life, whose rulings no one could correct, would read the Constitution by its "spirit," enlarge federal power and stand above the legislature and the people. Read the exchange on the ratification debate page.