[SECTION 1: Introduction] Marbury v. Madison

[Pontifex Maximus]

Welcome to the introduction! I will be providing the case brief for this case, feel free to use it as a format for your own. I will offer a few pointers on how to write a casebrief here as well, this will be a tutorial of sorts. I will answer any questions you have in this thread as well about the case. So without further delay, let's begin!

Marbury v. Madison. Why is it important for Constitutional Law? Well, ultimately for our purposes we are dealing with issues of individual liberty and equal protection. Marbury does not directly address any of these issues. In fact, Marbury is way more relevant with regards to Constitutional matters concerning federalism in the US system. This will be one of our only forays into issues of federalism in this course (because trust me it is was duller than the stuff we will be getting into).

Marbury is important because it establishes the doctrine of judicial review, which gives the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) the power of judicial review. Judicial Review allows the court to review actions of the executive and legislative branches and determine their validity under the auspices of the Constitution. I will not be going into any other issues here with regards to legal doctrine like the writ of mandamus, the only thing I want you to take from this case is that Judicial Review gives the court its authority to do all the subsequent actions it takes in this course.

Marbury v. Madison

Summary of the Facts: (A brief summary of the facts giving rise to the case)
William Marbury (Marbury), an end-of-term appointee of President John Adams (President Adams) to a justice of the peace position in the District of Columbia, brought suit against President Thomas Jefferson’s (President Jefferson) Secretary of State, James Madison, seeking delivery of his commission.
Legal Issue: (A statement of the relief being sought by the Plaintiff or the precise legal question at issue. This may also be in the form of a "Question Presented" I will give examples of both.)
Whether or not Marbury is entitled to relief, which includes a writ of mandamus (a written order of the court) to the executive branch to compel the delivery of the commission?

Question Presented: Is Marbury entitled to relief by the court's execution of a writ of mandamus compelling his appointment?

Decision: (This is a brief statement of what the court decided in this case)
No. The Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. (You might be thinking here: "whaaaat?")

Reasoning: (This is the main part of the case brief, this is where you will parse through the legal reasons why the court decided the way that it did.)
Since the President of the United Stated already signed the commission, it became valid from the point of the signing. Delivery of the commissions was not required because the President has the power to appoint executive officers. The court also held that since the rights of the commissioned officers become vested at the point of the President's appointment, they may seek redress in the courts for any violation of their corresponding rights as appointed officers. With those two things decided, the Supreme Court went further and found that when laws conflict with the Constitution, the Constitution prevails over the act passed by Congress. This meant that appointments (executive appointments in this case include...Supreme Court Justices...) made under the auspices of the Constitution cannot be further limited by any act of Congress.

[Pontifex Maximus]

[I'll remind everyone this case qualifies as a case for replies!]

[chesser2538]

Didn't Adams make the appointment to spite Jefferson by naming a bunch of people to important offices just before leaving office? If I remember correctly there were multiple people in the lawsuit that all wanted the jobs they were promised.

[Pontifex Maximus]

That's exactly right - this boils down to the first contentious use of lame duck appointments which were contested by the regime coming into power. Although collateral to the underlying ruling in Marbury, the holding did lend credibility to every subsequent executive lame-duck appointment for the next 200 years. In the modern era this includes controversial appointments of judges to U.S. District and Appellate Courts. Usually the Supreme Court appointments are the sexiest appointments to the court the president can make, but from a practical standpoint these lower court appointments are also a very big deal. After all, these lower appointments are not only the judicial officers on the ground, but they often form the corps of appointable SCOTUS justices in the future.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Some legal theorists are arguing that the Marbury decision was wrongly decided - and that the whole concept of Judicial Review is just an example of judicial overreach. If true, what would the impacts be on subsequent jurisprudence?

[NorseThing]

My problems with judicial review are exactly the problems of jurisdiction. Once it was decided there is no jurisdiction, then the matter of further review should have ended with just that part of the ruling and no more.

However, I believe there was proper jurisdiction and that the problem was having a remedy. It is today common to simply remand a case back to a lower court, but that was not available here. Perhaps it would have been best to ask the petitioner to take it to a lower court rather than review it directly and then claim lack of jurisdiction.

It could be I simply do not know the court as set up at the time though it seems there should have be some court between a justice of the peace an the Supreme Court that was operating within the District of Columbia at the time. If not, then the constitution would seem to give such jurisdiction to Congress rather the courts regarding this appointment.

(This probably is proof why I am not a lawyer.)

[Pontifex Maximus]

My problems with judicial review are exactly the problems of jurisdiction. Once it was decided there is no jurisdiction, then the matter of further review should have ended with just that part of the ruling and no more.

The Marbury Court disagrees - its holding was premised upon a finding that they had jurisdiction in the case beyond what the Judiciary Act allowed them. In light of this would you care to offer a more refined argument? Your argument is completely legitimate, many legal theorists who supported Jefferson's election would have echoed similar sentiments - my interest here is reproducing the same debate. Taking an anti-federalist position here is entirely legitimate.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I don't really see why Jefferson needed to go to court in the first place. Come to think of it Madison was able to appoint these individuals without support or sanction from any other body of government. Then logically he would also be able to remove them from their positions of his own initiative, right? So upon Jefferson taking up the presidency then it stands to reason that he could appoint or disbar these individuals as he saw fit. The office of the president was clearly all that was required to appoint these individuals in the first place. It would be within the President's power to choose which of these associates he wanted to work with. The districts themselves did not appear to have any say on the matter, but whether this was a problem or not is not so much the question which was raised by the court. Rather this is driven by the individuals themselves, to some extent the question of the office of the presidency and the Constitution is worked in somehow. But why even appeal to the Court or Constitution at all if the answer seems obvious, judging by Madison's own actions. Unless I'm missing something.

[Pontifex Maximus]

In those days, Justices of the Peace were minor court officials who could preside as magistrate judges over trivial matters, misdemeanors, and small civil disputes. Today the office is most commonly associated with being able to perform marriages or in some cases act as a notary public, but back then they were technically judges.

[Aexodus]

How can a balanced interpretation of the constitution be guaranteed, if those interpreters are chosen by the Executive of the day. In other words, while the constitution is obviously fundamentally unchanging, the interpretations of it wouldn't be, necessarily. Could the outcome of a case overltly depend on who is the President during that term, as they have the ultimate authority on appointment, which can then influence the outcome of cases like this?

[Pontifex Maximus]

Your question implicates the Constitutional balance of powers established by the framers as well as the stickier topic of different styles of legal interpretation, which I am going to say is beyond the scope of this course. Suffice it to say Justice Scalia's methods of interpretation differed wildly from those of Ginsburg. For people more interested in reading more about this I'd recommend Scalia's book. It's a pretty short read.

So as for Balance of Powers, the President appoints judges on the advice and consent of the Senate (he must be confirmed). This is seen as a check on the Legislature's power to create laws which step beyond constitutional limits. Judges are appointed for life and not subject to election - some presidents never got to appoint justices, some got to appoint many. Some have been appointed in the hopes the would rule on day just to act in the exact opposite way (Rehnquist).

[Derpy Hooves]

Reading the Justia link, and the main argument seems to be reiterated over and over again, just using different confusing words .
I know many conservatives are against judicial review, but I am for it. While it does seem oligarchic to have a group of unelected officials deciding what is or isn't constitutional, I'd rather have that than zero shields to protect the constitution.

[Pontifex Maximus]

The general understanding among law students is that the older the case, the bigger the headache it is to read

[Aexodus]

Your question implicates the Constitutional balance of powers established by the framers as well as the stickier topic of different styles of legal interpretation, which I am going to say is beyond the scope of this course. Suffice it to say Justice Scalia's methods of interpretation differed wildly from those of Ginsburg. For people more interested in reading more about this I'd recommend Scalia's book. It's a pretty short read.

So as for Balance of Powers, the President appoints judges on the advice and consent of the Senate (he must be confirmed). This is seen as a check on the Legislature's power to create laws which step beyond constitutional limits. Judges are appointed for life and not subject to election - some presidents never got to appoint justices, some got to appoint many. Some have been appointed in the hopes the would rule on day just to act in the exact opposite way (Rehnquist).

Maybe I didn't phrase my question the best (you're right, parts of this case is a bit of a headache or fully understand )

But a problem with judicial review could be that it *can* come down to individual bias, is it not vulnerable to that when you have a small group to interpret the constitution?

[Derpy Hooves]

Yes that is a problem. You also have many justices who essentially try to create law by ruling on something in the name of constitutionality

[Pontifex Maximus]

You're right - bias is a problem with judges who might change the law to fit their preferences. This is referred to as judicial activism.

[NorseThing]

To return to the question of jurisdiction, I am struggling with why this case even had an opinion beyond no remedy available by the courts. Your point that the opinion goes beyond the case is true, but that is my problem with the opinion. Going beyond the narrow and expanding is what many people dislike about judicial review. I agree with Derpy Hooves that judicial review is needed and that there needs to be some balance to counter the current chief executive versus the prior chief executive's actions. I understand why the founders were silent on this in writing the constitution (due to controversy that could make ratification more of a challenge), but I fail to see why there was not an early amendment once the constitution was ratified to address this awkward and a bit looking back to justify what was not explicit to the constitution. I still for the life of me do not easily get it though. I am sure it is me and that the years of scholarship are not wrong, but the law should start and end with the constitution and not go back to earlier comments and practices to justify judicial review.

[Pontifex Maximus]

You wouldn't be incorrect in that position. With this case in particular, it would be very helpful to have a more thorough understanding of the personalities involved. The early Republic was very much the play thing of the aristocracy who had an eye on Rome and Greece as models for their own government. This is perhaps some judicial activism shining through in this early court. Too bad we won't be covering some of the more outrageous cases where the justices truly do act like legislators in robes.

Perhaps if I had us read the Judiciary Act we would have a better understanding of things, but it isn't a thrilling read. The answer to your question lies in it however. In declaring sections of the Act unconstitutional the court was allowed to expand its own powers derived from the constitution in a pretty sneaky way.

[Aexodus]

To what extent can judicial review be considered 'anti-democratic' if at all?

[Pontifex Maximus]

Judicially active SCOTUS Justices are not easily removed from office (exceedingly, exceedingly rare), they are appointed for life, and they are largely not accountable to other branches of government after they are appointed.