5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) · 1803
Marbury v. Madison
judicial reviewSupreme Court powerconstitutional structureseparation of powersfederal courtsLandmark
Summary
Marbury v. Madison held that courts may refuse to enforce federal statutes that conflict with the Constitution. The Court found that Marbury had a right to his commission but that the Supreme Court lacked original jurisdiction to issue the writ he requested.
Background & Context
This case should be taught as a power-shifting case: Marbury lost the immediate remedy, but the Court claimed the power to strike down federal statutes that conflict with the Constitution.
The Question Before the Court
Could the Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus ordering Madison to deliver Marbury’s commission, and what happens when a federal statute conflicts with the Constitution?
Petitioner
Marbury
Party asking the Court to review or reverse
Argued
- Marbury had a legal right to his commission.
- The Court could order Madison to act.
Respondent
Madison
Party defending the judgment below
Argued
- The Jefferson administration resisted delivery of the commissions.
- The Court lacked original jurisdiction.
The Holding
The Supreme Court lacked original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to William Marbury because the part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that purported to give the Court that power conflicted with Article III. When a statute conflicts with the Constitution, courts must apply the Constitution.
The Court
How the justices lined up in this decision.
4-0
Vote
Joined decision
4 justicesJM
John Marshall
Majority
SC
Samuel Chase
Majority
WC
William Cushing
Majority
WP
William Paterson
Majority
What this means for you
Marbury made the Supreme Court a central referee in constitutional disputes. It gave courts power to invalidate federal laws that violate the Constitution, shaping fights over voting rights, civil rights, presidential power, federal agencies, criminal procedure, and nearly every major constitutional issue since. It also shows how institutional power can grow through a case where the Court technically denied the immediate relief requested.
Key Takeaways
- The case established judicial review of federal statutes.
- The Court held that Article III limited its original jurisdiction.
- The Judiciary Act of 1789 could not expand that original jurisdiction beyond the Constitution.
- Marbury did not receive the writ he requested.
- The decision became a foundation of Supreme Court power in constitutional law.
Decision
4-0 majority opinion
- Citation
- 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
- Vote
- 4-0
- Decision type
- Majority opinion
- Argued
- February 11, 1803
- Decided
- February 24, 1803
- Term
- 1801
- Opinion author
- John Marshall
Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the Court’s opinion. Justices William Cushing, William Paterson, and Samuel Chase joined. Justices William Moore and Alfred Moore did not participate or were absent from the decision record commonly cited.