Marbury vs. Madison 1803

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued February 11, 1803
Decided February 24, 1803

Full case name

William Marbury v. James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States

Citations

5 U.S. 137; 1 Cranch 137; 2 L. Ed. 60; 1803 U.S. LEXIS 352

Prior history

Original action filed in U.S. Supreme Court; order to show cause why writ of mandamus should not issue, December 1801

Subsequent history

None

Holding

Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the Judicial system to interpret what the Constitution permits.

Court membership

Chief Justice
John Marshall
Associate Justices
William Cushing · William Paterson
Samuel Chase · Bushrod Washington
Alfred Moore

Case opinions

Majority
Marshall, joined by Paterson, Chase, Washington
Cushing and Moore took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Laws applied

U.S. Const. arts. I, III; Judiciary Act of 1789 § 13

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.

So, if a law [e.g., a statute or treaty] be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law [e.g., the statute or treaty].

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions."

Marshall

Marbury v. Madison