Marbury v. Madison (1803) — Mr. Rogers AP Gov

Unit 2

Marbury v. Madison

5 U.S. 137 · February 24, 1803 · Chief Justice John Marshall

📋

BACKGROUND

The election of 1800 was a political earthquake. Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams, ending the Federalist era. In his final days as President, Adams rushed to fill the federal judiciary with Federalist judges — appointing 42 justices of the peace in what became known as the "midnight judges." The commissions were signed and sealed but not yet delivered when Adams left office. Jefferson's Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver them.

William Marbury was one of the men who never received his commission. He sued, asking the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus — a court order compelling Madison to deliver it. The case put Marshall in an impossible position: rule for Marbury and risk Jefferson ignoring the order (exposing the Court's weakness), or rule for Jefferson and hand the new administration a victory. Marshall found a third way — one that gave Jefferson the immediate win while seizing far greater power for the Court.

❓

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

Does the Supreme Court have the authority to review acts of Congress and void those that conflict with the Constitution — and did the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutionally expand the Court's original jurisdiction?

⚖️

THE RULING

✓ Marbury has a right to his commission — but the Court cannot help him

Unanimous · Chief Justice John Marshall writing for the Court

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."

Marshall's masterstroke: he ruled that Marbury was entitled to his commission, but that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 granting the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus was unconstitutional — it expanded the Court's original jurisdiction beyond what Article III allows. The Court voided part of an act of Congress for the first time. Jefferson got what he wanted (Marbury got nothing), but Marshall established that the Supreme Court — not Congress, not the President — has the final word on what the Constitution means.

📐

PRINCIPLE ESTABLISHED

Judicial Review

The Supreme Court has the power to review acts of Congress, executive actions, and state laws to determine whether they conform to the Constitution. Laws found to be unconstitutional are void and unenforceable. This power is not in the Constitution's text — Marshall derived it from the logic of constitutional supremacy: if the Constitution is supreme law and courts interpret law, then courts must be able to void laws that contradict it. This principle has governed American constitutional law for over 220 years.

⚡

MARSHALL'S THREE-STEP LOGIC

Step 1 The Constitution is supreme law — it is superior to ordinary legislation. If Congress passes a law that conflicts with the Constitution, one of them must give way.
Step 2 It is the job of courts to say what the law is. When two laws conflict, courts must decide which controls. The Constitution is law, so courts must be able to interpret it.
Step 3 Therefore: courts must be able to void acts of Congress that conflict with the Constitution. Otherwise the Constitution would be unenforceable — a mere parchment barrier. The Supremacy Clause would be meaningless.

🔗

LEGACY & SIGNIFICANCE

Judicial Review
Established Every major constitutional ruling since 1803 rests on Marbury. Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade, Citizens United — all require judicial review to exist. Without Marbury, Congress and the President could pass any law regardless of constitutional limits.
Connects to
Federalist 78 Hamilton anticipated judicial review in Federalist 78, arguing courts must have the power to void laws that contradict the Constitution. Marshall's reasoning tracks Hamilton's almost exactly — making this a direct link between the Federalist Papers and constitutional law.
Political
Genius Marshall gave Jefferson nothing he could object to (Marbury got no commission) while seizing the power of judicial review permanently. Jefferson recognized what had happened and was furious — but there was nothing he could do. The Court had avoided a confrontation it would have lost and won a constitutional war instead.
Limits of
Judicial Review Courts can declare laws unconstitutional, but they cannot enforce their own rulings — that requires the executive branch. When President Jackson disagreed with a Cherokee Nation ruling, he reportedly said "Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." The Court's power ultimately depends on political compliance.

EXAM FOCUS

Marbury is the most important case in AP Government. You must be able to explain judicial review — what it is, that it's NOT in the Constitution, and that Marshall derived it from constitutional logic. It appears in SCOTUS comparison FRQs most often paired with a modern case where the Court struck down a law. Always connect Marbury to Federalist 78.

Quick Facts

VoteUnanimous (4-0)

ProvisionArticle III · Supremacy Clause

Common Mistakes

✗Saying judicial review is in the Constitution — it is NOT. Marshall created it.

✗Thinking Marbury won — he got nothing. The Court ruled it lacked jurisdiction to help him.

✗Forgetting that Marshall ruled AGAINST his own party (Federalists) to establish the larger principle.

Related Cases & Docs

Federalist No. 78Hamilton anticipates judicial review McCulloch v. MarylandMarshall again — implied powers U.S. v. LopezJudicial review limiting Congress