You are searching about Why Was The Decision In The Case Marbury V. Madison (1803) Of Great Importance In American History?, today we will share with you article about Marbury v. Madison – Wikipedia was compiled and edited by our team from many sources on the internet. Hope this article on the topic Why Was The Decision In The Case Marbury V. Madison (1803) Of Great Importance In American History? is useful to you.

Marbury v. Madison – Wikipedia

1803 landmark U.S. Supreme Court case

1803 United States Supreme Court case
Marbury v. Madison

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 (more)

1 Cranch 137; 2 L. Ed. 60; 1803 U.S. LEXIS 352
Decision Opinion
Case history
Prior Original action filed in U.S. Supreme Court; order to show cause why writ of mandamus should not issue, December 1801
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 judiciary 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 opinion
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

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes that they find to violate the Constitution of the United States. Decided in 1803, Marbury is regarded as the single most important decision in American constitutional law. The Court’s landmark decision established that the U.S. Constitution is actual law, not just a statement of political principles and ideals, and helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the federal government.

The case originated in early 1801 as part of the political and ideological rivalry between outgoing President John Adams and incoming President Thomas Jefferson. Adams had lost the U.S. presidential election of 1800 to Jefferson. In March 1801, just two days before his term as president ended, Adams appointed several dozen Federalist Party supporters to new circuit judge and justice of the peace positions in an attempt to frustrate Jefferson and his supporters in the Democratic-Republican Party. The U.S. Senate quickly confirmed Adams’s appointments, but outgoing Secretary of State John Marshall did not deliver all of the new judges’ commissions before Adams’s departure and Jefferson’s inauguration. Jefferson believed the undelivered commissions were void and instructed his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver them. One of the undelivered commissions belonged to William Marbury, a Maryland businessman who had been a strong supporter of Adams and the Federalists. In late 1801, after Madison had repeatedly refused to deliver his commission, Marbury filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court asking the Court to issue a writ of mandamus forcing Madison to deliver his commission.

In an opinion written by Chief Justice Marshall, the Court held firstly that Madison’s refusal to deliver Marbury’s commission was illegal, and secondly that it was normally proper for a court in such situations to order the government official in question to deliver the commission. But in Marbury’s case, the Court did not order Madison to comply. Examining the law Congress had passed to define the Supreme Court jurisdiction over types of cases like Marbury’s—Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789—the Court found that the Act had expanded the definition of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction beyond what was originally set forth in the U.S. Constitution. The Court then struck down Section 13 of the Act, announcing that American courts have the power to invalidate laws that they find to violate the Constitution—a power now known as “judicial review”. Because striking down the law removed any jurisdiction the Court might have had over the case, the Court could not issue the writ that Marbury had requested.


President John Adams, who appointed Marbury just before his presidential term ended.
Thomas Jefferson, who succeeded Adams and believed Marbury’s undelivered commission was void.
William Marbury, whose commission Madison refused to deliver.
James Madison, Jefferson’s Secretary of State, who withheld Marbury’s commission.

In the fiercely contested U.S. presidential election of 1800, the three main candidates were Thomas Jefferson, Aaron Burr, and the incumbent president, John Adams. Adams espoused the pro-business and pro-national-government politics of the Federalist Party and its leader, Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson and Burr were leaders of the opposing Democratic-Republican Party, which favored agriculture and decentralization. American public opinion had gradually turned against the Federalists in the months leading up to the election, mainly due to the Federalists’ use of the controversial Alien and Sedition Acts, as well as growing tensions with Great Britain, with whom the Federalists favored close ties. Jefferson easily won the election’s popular vote but only narrowly defeated Adams in the Electoral College.

As the results of the election became clear, Adams and the Federalists became determined to exercise their remaining influence before Jefferson took office, and they did everything they could to fill federal offices with “anti-Jeffersonians” who were loyal to the Federalists. On March 2, 1801, just two days before his presidential term ended, Adams nominated nearly 60 Federalist supporters to new circuit judge and justice of the peace positions the Federalist-controlled Congress had recently created. These last-minute nominees—whom Jefferson’s supporters derisively called the “Midnight Judges”—included William Marbury, a prosperous businessman from Maryland. An ardent Federalist, Marbury was active in Maryland politics and had been a vigorous supporter of the Adams presidency.

The following day, March 3, the Senate approved Adams’s nominations en masse. The appointees’ commissions were immediately written out, then signed by Adams and sealed by Secretary of State John Marshall, who had been named the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in January but agreed to continue serving as Secretary of State for the remaining weeks of Adams’s presidency. Marshall then dispatched his younger brother James Markham Marshall to deliver the commissions to the appointees. With only one day left before Jefferson’s inauguration, James Marshall was able to deliver most of the commissions, but a few—including Marbury’s—were not delivered.

The day after, March 4, 1801, Jefferson was sworn in and became the third President of the United States. Jefferson instructed his new Secretary of State, James Madison, to withhold the undelivered commissions. In Jefferson’s opinion, the commissions were void because they had not been delivered before Adams left office. Without the commissions, the appointees were unable to assume the offices and duties to which they had been appointed.

Over the next several months, Madison continually refused to deliver Marbury’s commission to him. Finally, in December 1801, Marbury filed a lawsuit against Madison in the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to force Madison to deliver his commission. This lawsuit resulted in the case of Marbury v. Madison.


An 1808 engraving of Chief Justice John Marshall by French portrait painter Charles Balthazar Julien Févret de Saint-Mémin

On February 24, 1803, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous 4–0 decision against Marbury. The Court’s opinion was written by Chief Justice John Marshall, who structured the Court’s opinion around a series of three questions it answered in turn:

  • First, did Marbury have a right to his commission?
  • Second, if Marbury had a right to his commission, was there a legal remedy for him to obtain it?
  • Third, if there was such a remedy, could the Supreme Court legally issue it?

Marbury’s right to his commission

The Court began by determining that Marbury had a legal right to his commission. Marshall reasoned that all appropriate procedures were followed: the commission had been properly signed and sealed. Madison had argued that the commissions were void if not delivered, but the Court disagreed, saying that the delivery of the commission was merely a custom, not an essential element of the commission itself.

The [President’s] signature is a warrant for affixing the great seal to the commission, and the great seal is only to be affixed to an instrument which is complete. … The transmission of the commission is a practice directed by convenience, but not by law. It cannot therefore be necessary to constitute the appointment, which must precede it and which is the mere act of the President.

— Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. at 158, 160.

The Court said that because Marbury’s commission was valid, Madison’s withholding it was “violative of a vested legal right” on Marbury’s part.

Marbury’s legal remedy

Turning to the second question, the Court said that the law provided Marbury a remedy for Madison’s unlawful withholding of his commission. Marshall wrote that “it is a general and indisputable rule, that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law, whenever that right is invaded.” This rule derives from the ancient Roman legal maxim ubi jus, ibi remedium (“where there is a legal right, there is a legal remedy”), which was well established in the English common law. In what the American legal scholar Akhil Amar called “one of the most important and inspiring passages” of the opinion, Marshall wrote:

The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury.

— Marbury, 5 U.S. at 163.

The Court then confirmed that a writ of mandamus—a type of court order that commands a government official to perform an act their official duties legally require them to perform—was the proper remedy for Marbury’s situation. But this raised the issue of whether the Court, which was part of the judicial branch of the government, had the power to command Madison, who as secretary of state was part of the executive branch of the government. The Court held that so long as the remedy involved a mandatory duty to a specific person, and not a political matter left to discretion, the courts could provide the legal remedy. Borrowing a phrase John Adams had drafted in 1779 for the Massachusetts State Constitution, Marshall wrote: “The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men.”

The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction

The U.S. Capitol, home of the U.S. Congress and also where the U.S. Supreme Court convened from 1801 until the Supreme Court Building’s completion in 1935.

This brought Marshall to the third question: did the Supreme Court have proper jurisdiction over the case that would allow it to issue the writ of mandamus? The answer depended entirely on how the Court interpreted the text of the Judiciary Act of 1789. Congress had passed the Judiciary Act to establish the American federal court system, since the U.S. Constitution only mandates a Supreme Court and leaves the rest of the U.S. federal judicial power to reside in “such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Section 13 of the Judiciary Act sets out the Supreme Court’s original and appellate jurisdictions.

And be it further enacted, That the Supreme Court shall have exclusive [original] jurisdiction over all cases of a civil nature where a state is a party … And shall have exclusively all such jurisdiction of suits or proceedings against ambassadors, or other public ministers … The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states, in the cases herein after specially provided for; and shall have power to issue … writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.

— Judiciary Act of 1789, Section 13 (emphasis added)

Marbury had argued that the language of Section 13 of the Judiciary Act gave the Supreme Court the authority to issue writs of mandamus when hearing cases under original jurisdiction, not just appellate jurisdiction. As Marshall explains in the opinion, original jurisdiction gives a court the power to be the first to hear and decide a case; appellate jurisdiction gives a court the power to hear an appeal from a lower court’s decision and to “revise and correct” the previous decision. Although the language on the power to issue writs of mandamus appears after Section 13’s sentence on appellate jurisdiction, rather than with the earlier sentences on original jurisdiction, a semicolon separates it from the clause on appellate jurisdiction. The section does not make clear whether the mandamus clause was intended to be read as part of the appellate clause or on its own—in the opinion, Marshall quoted only the end of the section—and the law’s wording can plausibly be read either way. In the end, the Court agreed with Marbury and interpreted section 13 of the Judiciary Act to have authorized the Court to exercise original jurisdiction over cases involving disputes over writs of mandamus.

But as Marshall pointed out, this meant that the Judiciary Act contradicted Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes the judicial branch of the U.S. government. Article III defines the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction as follows:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

— U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2 (emphasis added).

Article III says that the Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction over cases where a U.S. state is a party to a lawsuit or where a lawsuit involves foreign dignitaries. Neither of these categories covered Marbury’s lawsuit, which was a dispute over a writ of mandamus for his justice of the peace commission. So, according to the Constitution, the Court did not have original jurisdiction over a case like Marbury’s.

But the Court had interpreted the Judiciary Act to have given it original jurisdiction over lawsuits for writs of mandamus. This meant that the Judiciary Act had taken the Constitution’s initial scope for the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, which did not cover cases involving writs of mandamus, and expanded it to include them. The Court ruled that Congress cannot increase the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction as it was set down in the Constitution, and it therefore held that the relevant portion of Section 13 of the Judiciary Act violated Article III of the Constitution.

Judicial review and striking down the law

Main article: Judicial review in the United States

Marshall’s famous line from Marbury v. Madison on American federal courts’ power to interpret the law, now inscribed on the wall of the U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C.

After ruling that it conflicted with the Constitution, the Court struck down Section 13 of the Judiciary Act in the U.S. Supreme Court’s first ever declaration of the power of judicial review. The Court ruled that American federal courts have the power to refuse to give any effect to congressional legislation that is inconsistent with their interpretation of the Constitution—a move known as “striking down” laws.

The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly give the American judiciary the power of judicial review. Nevertheless, the Court’s opinion gives many reasons in support of the judiciary’s possession of the power. First, Marshall reasoned that the written nature of the Constitution inherently established judicial review. Borrowing from Alexander Hamilton’s essay Federalist No. 78, Marshall wrote:

The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. … Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.

— Marbury, 5 U.S. at 176–77.

Second, the Court declared that deciding the constitutionality of the laws it applies is an inherent part of the American judiciary’s role. In what has become the most famous and frequently quoted line of the opinion, Marshall wrote:

It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.

— Marbury, 5 U.S. at 177.

Marshall reasoned that the Constitution places limits on the American government’s powers, and that those limits would be meaningless unless they were subject to judicial review and enforcement. He reasoned that the Constitution’s provisions limiting Congress’s power—such as the export tax clause or the prohibitions on bills of attainder and ex post facto laws—meant that in some cases judges would be forced to choose between enforcing the Constitution or following Congress. Marshall held “virtually as a matter of iron logic” that in the event of conflict between the Constitution and statutory laws passed by Congress, the constitutional law must be supreme.

Third, the Court said that denying the supremacy of the Constitution over Congress’s acts would mean that “courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.” This, Marshall wrote, would make Congress omnipotent, since none of the laws it passed would ever be invalid.

This doctrine … would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits.

— Marbury, 5 U.S. at 178.

Marshall then gave several other reasons in favor of judicial review. He reasoned that the authorization in Article III of the Constitution that the Court can decide cases arising “under this Constitution” implied that the Court had the power to strike down laws conflicting with the Constitution. This, Marshall wrote, meant that the Founders were willing to have the American judiciary use and interpret the Constitution when judging cases. He also said that federal judges’ oaths of office—in which they swear to discharge their duties impartially and “agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States”—requires them to support the Constitution. Lastly, Marshall reasoned that judicial review is implied in the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, since it declares that the supreme law of the United States is the Constitution and laws made “in Pursuance thereof”, rather than the Constitution and all federal laws generally.

Having given his list of reasons, Marshall concluded the Court’s opinion by reaffirming the Court’s ruling on the invalidity of Section 13 of the Judiciary Act and, therefore, the Court’s inability to issue Marbury’s writ of mandamus.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. The rule must be discharged.

— Marbury, 5 U.S. at 180.


Political dilemma

Chief justice John Marshall, as painted by Henry Inman in 1832, after having presided over the American federal judiciary for over 30 years

Besides its legal issues, the case of Marbury v. Madison also created a difficult political dilemma for John Marshall and the Supreme Court. If the Court had ruled in Marbury’s favor and issued a writ of mandamus ordering Madison to deliver Marbury’s commission, Jefferson and Madison would probably have simply ignored it, which would have made the Court look impotent and emphasized the “shakiness” of the judiciary. On the other hand, a simple ruling against Marbury would have given Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans a clear political victory over the Federalists.

Marshall solved both problems. First, he had the Court rule that Madison’s withholding of Marbury’s commission was illegal, which pleased the Federalists. But the opinion he wrote also held that the Court could not grant Marbury his requested writ of mandamus, which gave Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans the result they desired. But in what the American legal scholar Laurence Tribe calls “an oft-told tale … [that] remains awe-inspiring”, Marshall had the Court rule against Marbury in a way that maneuvered Marbury’s simple petition for a writ of mandamus into a case that presented a question that went to the heart of American constitutional law itself. The American political historian Robert G. McCloskey described:

[Marbury v. Madison] is a masterwork of indirection, a brilliant example of Marshall’s capacity to sidestep danger while seeming to court it. … The danger of a head-on clash with the Jeffersonians was averted by the denial of jurisdiction: but, at the same time, the declaration that the commission was illegally withheld scotched any impression that the Court condoned the administration’s behavior. These negative maneuvers were artful achievements in their own right. But the touch of genius is evident when Marshall, not content with having rescued a bad situation, seizes the occasion to set forth the doctrine of judicial review. It is easy for us to see in retrospect that the occasion was golden, … but only a judge of Marshall’s discernment could have recognized it.

Marshall had been looking for a case suitable for introducing judicial review and was eager to use the situation in Marbury to establish his claim. He introduced judicial review—a move Jefferson decried—but used it to strike down a provision of a law that he read to have expanded the Supreme Court’s powers, and thereby produced Jefferson’s hoped-for result of Marbury losing his case. Marshall “seized the occasion to uphold the institution of judicial review, but he did so in the course of reaching a judgment that his political opponents could neither defy nor protest.” Though Jefferson criticized the Court’s decision, he accepted it, and Marshall’s opinion in Marbury “articulate[d] a role for the federal courts that survives to this day.” The American legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky concludes: “The brilliance of Marshall’s opinion cannot be overstated.”

Legal criticism

Marshall’s historic opinion in Marbury v. Madison continues to be the subject of critical analysis and inquiry. In a 1955 Harvard Law Review article, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter emphasized that one can criticize Marshall’s opinion in Marbury without demeaning it: “The courage of Marbury v. Madison is not minimized by suggesting that its reasoning is not impeccable and its conclusion, however wise, not inevitable.”

Criticisms of Marshall’s opinion in Marbury usually fall into two general categories. First, some criticize the way Marshall “strove” to reach the conclusion that the U.S. Supreme Court has constitutional authority over the other branches of the U.S. government. Today, American courts generally follow the principle of “constitutional avoidance”: if a certain interpretation of a law raises constitutional problems, they prefer to use alternative interpretations that avoid these problems, so long as the alternative interpretations are still plausible. In Marbury, Marshall could have avoided the constitutional questions through different legal rulings: for example, if he had ruled that Marbury did not have a right to his commission until it was delivered, or if he had ruled that refusals to honor political appointments could only be remedied through the political process and not the judicial process, it would have ended the case immediately and the Court would not have reached the case’s constitutional issues. Marshall did not do so, and many legal scholars have criticized him for it. Some scholars have responded that the “constitutional avoidance” principle did not exist in 1803, and in any case is “only a general guide for Court action”, not an “ironclad rule”. Alternatively, it has also been argued that the claim that Marshall “strove” to create a controversy largely vanishes when the case is viewed from the legal perspective of the late 18th century, when American colonies’ and states’ supreme courts were largely modeled on England’s Court of King’s Bench, which inherently possessed mandamus powers.

Second, Marshall’s arguments for the Court’s authority are sometimes said to be mere “series of assertions”, rather than substantive reasons logically laid out to support his position. Scholars generally agree that Marshall’s series of assertions regarding the U.S. Constitution and the actions of the other branches of government do not “inexorably lead to the conclusion that Marshall draws from them.” Marshall’s assertion of the American judiciary’s authority to review executive branch actions was the most controversial issue when Marbury was first decided, and several subsequent U.S. presidents have tried to dispute it, to varying degrees.

Additionally, it is questionable whether Marshall should have participated in the Marbury case because of his participating role in the dispute. Marshall was still the acting secretary of state when the nominations were made, and he had signed Marbury and the other men’s commissions and had been responsible for their delivery. This potential conflict of interest raises strong grounds for Marshall to have recused himself from the case. In hindsight, the fact that Marshall did not recuse himself from Marbury is likely indicative of his eagerness to hear the case and use it to establish judicial review.


Marbury v. Madison is regarded as the single most important decision in American constitutional law. It established U.S. federal judges’ authority to review the constitutionality of Congress’s legislative acts, and to this day the Supreme Court’s power to review the constitutionality of American laws at both the federal and state level “is generally rested upon the epic decision of Marbury v. Madison.”

The subpoena duces tecum (order to bring items as evidence) issued to President Richard Nixon that was the center of the dispute in the 1974 judicial review case United States v. Nixon

Although the Court’s opinion in Marbury established judicial review in American federal law, it did not invent or create it. Some 18th-century British jurists had argued that English courts had the power to circumscribe Parliament. The idea became widely accepted in Colonial America—especially in Marshall’s native Virginia—under the rationale that in America only the people were sovereign, rather than the government, and so the courts should only implement legitimate laws. By the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, American courts’ “independent power and duty to interpret the law” was well established, and Hamilton had defended the concept in Federalist No. 78. Nevertheless, Marshall’s opinion in Marbury was the power’s first announcement and exercise by the Supreme Court. It made the practice more routine, rather than exceptional, and prepared the way for the Court’s opinion in the 1819 case McCulloch v. Maryland, in which Marshall implied that the Supreme Court was the supreme interpreter of the U.S. Constitution.

Marbury also established that the power of judicial review covers actions by the executive branch—the President and his cabinet members. However, American courts’ power of judicial review over executive branch actions only extends to matters in which the executive has a legal duty to act or refrain from acting, and does not extend to matters that are entirely within the President’s discretion, such as whether to veto a bill or whom to appoint to an office. This power has been the basis of many subsequent important Supreme Court decisions in American history, such as the 1974 decision United States v. Nixon, in which the Court held that President Richard Nixon had to comply with a subpoena to provide tapes of his conversations for use in a criminal trial related to the Watergate scandal, and which ultimately led to Nixon’s resignation.

Although it is a potent check on the other branches of the U.S. government, federal courts rarely exercised the power of judicial review in early American history. After deciding Marbury in 1803, the Supreme Court did not strike down another federal law until 1857, when the Court struck down the Missouri Compromise in its now-infamous decision Dred Scott v. Sandford, a ruling that contributed to the outbreak of the American Civil War.

See also

  • Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth
  • Calder v. Bull
  • Hylton v. United States
  • Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee




Works cited

Further reading

  • Nelson, William E. (2000). Marbury v. Madison: The Origins and Legacy of Judicial Review. University Press of Kansas. ISBN 978-0-7006-1062-4. (one introduction to the case)
  • Clinton, Robert Lowry (1991). Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review. University Press of Kansas. ISBN 978-0-7006-0517-0. (Claims that it is a mistake to read the case as claiming a judicial power to tell the President or Congress what they can or cannot do under the Constitution.)
  • Irons, Peter H. (1999). A People’s History of the Supreme Court. Penguin Books. pp. 104–107. ISBN 978-0-14-029201-5.
  • Newmyer, R. Kent (2001). John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court. Louisiana State University Press. ISBN 978-0-8071-3249-4.
  • James M. O’Fallon, The Case of Benjamin More: A Lost Episode in the Struggle over Repeal of the 1801 Judiciary Act, 11 Law & Hist. Rev. 43 (1993).
  • Tushnet, Mark (2008). I dissent: Great Opposing Opinions in Landmark Supreme Court Cases. Boston: Beacon Press. pp. 1–16. ISBN 978-0-8070-0036-6.
  • Sloan, Cliff; McKean, David (2009). The Great Decision: Jefferson, Adams, Marshall and the Battle for the Supreme Court. New York, NY: PublicAffairs. ISBN 978-1-58648-426-2.
  • Trachtman, Michael G. (2016-09-06). The Supremes’ Greatest Hits, 2nd Revised & Updated Edition: The 44 Supreme Court Cases That Most Directly Affect Your Life (Third, Revised ed.). Sterling. ISBN 9781454920779.

External links

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Marbury v. Madison
  • Text of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) is available from: Cornell  Findlaw  Justia  Library of Congress  OpenJurist 
  • Primary Documents in American History: Marbury v. Madison from the Library of Congress
  • “John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, and Judicial Review—How the Court Became Supreme” Lesson plan for grades 9–12 from National Endowment for the Humanities
  • The 200th Anniversary of Marbury v. Madison: The Reasons We Should Still Care About the Decision, and The Lingering Questions It Left Behind
  • The Establishment of Judicial Review
  • The 200th Anniversary of Marbury v. Madison: The Supreme Court’s First Great Case
  • Case Brief for Marbury v. Madison at
  • The short film Marbury v. Madison (1977) is available for free download at the Internet Archive.
  • “Supreme Court Landmark Case Marbury v. Madison” from C-SPAN’s Landmark Cases: Historic Supreme Court Decisions
  • Marbury v. Madison public domain audiobook at LibriVox
  • v
  • t
  • e
James Madison
  • 4th President of the United States (1809–1817)
  • 5th U.S. Secretary of State (1801–1809)
  • United States House of Representatives (1789–1797)
  • Congress of the Confederation (1781–1783)
  • Virginia House of Delegates (1776–1779, 1784–1786)
“Father of the
  • Co-wrote, 1776 Virginia Constitution
  • 1786 Annapolis Convention
  • 1787 Constitutional Convention
    • Virginia Plan
    • Constitution of the United States
    • Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787
  • The Federalist Papers
    • written by Madison
    • No. 10
    • No. 51
  • Virginia Ratifying Convention
  • United States Bill of Rights
    • 27th amendment
  • Constitution drafting and ratification timeline
  • Tariff of 1789
  • Founding Fathers
  • First inauguration
  • Second inauguration
  • Tecumseh’s War
    • Battle of Tippecanoe
  • War of 1812
    • origins
    • Burning of Washington
    • The Octagon House
    • Treaty of Ghent
    • Seven Buildings residence
    • results
  • Second Barbary War
  • Era of Good Feelings
  • Second Bank of the United States
  • State of the Union Address (1810
  • 1814
  • 1815
  • 1816)
  • Cabinet
  • Federal judiciary appointments
Other noted
  • Co-founder, American Whig Society
  • Co-author, George Washington’s Farewell Address
  • Supervised the Louisiana Purchase
  • Anti-Administration party
  • Residence Act
    • Compromise of 1790
  • Democratic-Republican Party
    • First Party System
    • republicanism
  • Library of Congress
  • Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions
  • Report of 1800
Other writings
  • The Papers of James Madison
  • Founders Online
  • Early life and career
  • James Madison and slavery
  • Belle Grove Plantation, birthplace
  • Montpelier
  • 1789 Virginia’s 5th congressional district election
  • 1790
  • 1792
  • 1794
  • U.S. presidential election, 1808
  • 1812
Legacy and
popular culture
  • Bibliography
  • Memorials
  • James Madison Memorial Building
    • statue
  • James Madison University
  • James Madison College
  • Madison, Wisconsin
    • James Madison Park
    • James Madison Memorial High School
  • Madison Square
    • Madison Square Garden
  • Madison River
  • Mount Madison
  • Madison Street
  • U.S. postage stamps
  • James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation
  • James Madison Freedom of Information Award
  • James Madison Award
  • James Madison Institute
  • James Madison Museum
  • USRC James Madison
  • USS Madison
  • USS James Madison
  • A More Perfect Union (1989 film)
  • Liberty’s Kids (2002 series)
  • Hamilton (musical, film)
  • Washington (2020 miniseries)
  • Age of Enlightenment
  • American Enlightenment
  • Marbury v. Madison
  • National Gazette
  • Paul Jennings
  • Madisonian model
    • Cognitive Madisonianism
  • American Philosophical Society
  • The American Museum magazine
  • Virginia dynasty
  • Dolley Madison (wife)
  • John Payne Todd (stepson)
  • James Madison Sr. (father)
  • William Madison (brother)
  • Ambrose Madison (grandfather)
  • ← Thomas Jefferson
  • James Monroe →
  • Category
  • v
  • t
  • e
Thomas Jefferson
  • 3rd President of the United States (1801–1809)
  • 2nd Vice President of the United States (1797–1801)
  • 1st U.S. Secretary of State (1790–1793)
  • U.S. Minister to France (1785–1789)
  • Delegate, Congress of the Confederation (1783-1784)
  • 2nd Governor of Virginia (1779–1781)
  • Delegate, Second Continental Congress (1775–1776)
documents of
the United States
  • A Summary View of the Rights of British America (1774)
  • Olive Branch Petition (initial draft; 1775)
  • Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms (1775)
  • Declaration of Independence (1776)
    • Committee of Five
    • authored
    • physical history
    • “All men are created equal”
    • “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”
    • “Consent of the governed”
  • Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1777 draft and 1786 passage
    • Freedom of religion
  • Land Ordinance of 1784
  • Land Ordinance of 1785
  • Northwest Ordinance (1787)
French Revolution
  • Co-author, Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789)
  • Inaugural addresses
    • 1801
    • 1805
  • Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves
  • Louisiana Purchase
  • Lewis and Clark Expedition
    • Corps of Discovery
    • timeline
    • Empire of Liberty
  • Red River Expedition
  • Pike Expedition
  • Cumberland Road
  • Embargo Act of 1807
    • ChesapeakeLeopard affair
    • Non-Intercourse Act
  • First Barbary War
  • Native American policy
  • Marbury v. Madison
  • West Point Military Academy
  • State of the Union Addresses
    • 1801
    • 1802
    • 1805
  • Cabinet
  • Federal judicial appointments
Other noted
  • Early life and career
  • Franco-American alliance
  • Founder, University of Virginia
    • history
  • Ratification Day
  • Anti-Administration party
  • Democratic-Republican Party
  • Jeffersonian democracy
    • First Party System
    • republicanism
  • Plan for Establishing Uniformity in the Coinage, Weights, and Measures of the United States (1790)
  • Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions
  • A Manual of Parliamentary Practice (1801)
  • American Creed
  • Jefferson disk
  • Swivel chair
  • Barboursville
  • Farmington
  • Monticello
    • gardens
  • Poplar Forest
  • University of Virginia
    • The Rotunda
    • The Lawn
    • Jefferson Hall
  • Virginia State Capitol
  • White House Colonnades
Other writings
  • The Papers of Thomas Jefferson
  • Notes on the State of Virginia (1785)
  • Proposals for concerted operation among the powers at war with the Pyratical states of Barbary (1786)
  • European journey memorandums (1787)
  • Indian removal letters
  • The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth (c. 1819)
  • Jefferson manuscript collection at the Massachusetts Historical Society
  • Founders Online
  • Age of Enlightenment
  • American Enlightenment
  • American Philosophical Society
  • American Revolution
    • patriots
  • Member, Virginia Committee of Correspondence
  • Committee of the States
  • Founding Fathers of the United States
  • Jefferson and education
  • Religious views
  • Jefferson and slavery
  • Jefferson and the Library of Congress
  • Jefferson Pier
  • Pet mockingbird
  • National Gazette
  • Residence Act
    • Compromise of 1790
  • Sally Hemings
    • Jefferson–Hemings controversy
    • Betty Hemings
  • Separation of church and state
  • The American Museum magazine
  • Virginia dynasty
  • Ward republic
  • Presidential elections
    • 1796
    • 1800
    • 1804
Legacy and
  • Bibliography
  • Jefferson Memorial
  • Mount Rushmore
  • Birthday
  • Thomas Jefferson Building
  • Jefferson Territory
  • Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression
  • Jefferson Lecture
  • Jefferson National Expansion Memorial
  • Thomas Jefferson Star for Foreign Service
  • Karl Bitter statues
  • Columbia University statue
  • Louisville statue
  • University of Virginia statue
  • David d’Angers statue
  • Jefferson Literary and Debating Society
  • Thomas Jefferson Foundation
  • Jefferson Lab
  • Monticello Association
  • Jefferson City, Missouri
  • Jefferson College
  • Thomas Jefferson School of Law
  • Thomas Jefferson University
  • Washington and Jefferson National Forests
  • Peaks and mountains
  • Jefferson Rock
  • Other placenames
  • Jefferson–Jackson Day
  • Currency depictions
    • Jefferson nickel
    • Two-dollar bill
    • Louisiana Purchase Exposition gold dollar
    • 250th Anniversary silver dollar
  • U.S. postage stamps
  • Memorial to the 56 Signers of the Declaration of Independence
Popular culture
  • Ben and Me (1953 short)
  • 1776
    • 1969 musical
    • 1972 film
  • Jefferson in Paris (1995 film)
  • Thomas Jefferson (1997 film)
  • Liberty! (1997 documentary series)
  • Liberty’s Kids (2002 animated series)
  • John Adams (2008 miniseries)
  • Jefferson’s Garden (2015 play)
  • Hamilton
    • 2015 musical
    • 2020 film
  • Washington (2020 miniseries)
  • Wine bottles controversy
  • Martha Jefferson (wife)
  • Martha Jefferson Randolph (daughter)
  • Mary Jefferson Eppes (daughter)
  • Harriet Hemings (daughter)
  • Madison Hemings (son)
  • Eston Hemings (son)
  • Thomas J. Randolph (grandson)
  • Francis Eppes (grandson)
  • George W. Randolph (grandson)
  • John Wayles Jefferson (grandson)
  • Frederick Madison Roberts (great-grandson)
  • Peter Jefferson (father)
  • Jane Randolph Jefferson (mother)
  • Lucy Jefferson Lewis (sister)
  • Randolph Jefferson (brother)
  • Isham Randolph (grandfather)
  • William Randolph (great-grandfather)
  • ← John Adams
  • James Madison →
  • Category
  • v
  • t
  • e
U.S. Supreme Court Article III case law
  • Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. (1941)
  • Burford v. Sun Oil Co. (1943)
  • Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux (1959)
  • United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Ideal Cement Co. (1962)
  • England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners (1964)
  • Younger v. Harris (1971)
  • Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States (1976)
  • Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. (1983)
Adequate and independent state ground
  • Murdock v. City of Memphis (1875)
  • Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy (1896)
  • Fox Film Corp. v. Muller (1935)
  • Harrison v. NAACP (1959)
  • Michigan v. Long (1983)
Federal common law
  • United States v. Hudson (1812)
  • Swift v. Tyson (1842)
  • Black & White Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab & Transfer Co. (1928)
  • Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938)
  • Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co. (1938)
  • Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States (1943)
Rooker–Feldman doctrine
  • Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. (1923)
  • District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman (1983)
  • Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. (2005)
Sovereign immunity
  • Little v. Barreme (1804)
  • The Schooner Exchange v. M’Faddon (1812)
  • United States v. Lee (1882)
  • Schillinger v. United States (1894)
  • Feres v. United States (1950)
  • United States v. Wunderlich (1951)
  • Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino (1964)
  • Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez (1978)
  • United States v. Stanley (1987)
  • Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band, Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma (1991)
  • Saudi Arabia v. Nelson (1993)
  • Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. (1998)
  • College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board (1999)
  • C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band, Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma (2001)
  • Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community (2003)
  • United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe (2003)
  • Republic of Austria v. Altmann (2004)
  • City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York (2005)
  • Dolan v. United States Postal Service (2006)
  • Permanent Mission of India v. City of New York (2007)
  • Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons (2008)
  • Samantar v. Yousuf (2010)
  • United States v. Bormes (2012)
  • Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd. (2014)
  • OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs (2015)
  • Jam v. International Finance Corp. (2019)
  • Republic of Sudan v. Harrison (2019)
  • Opati v. Republic of Sudan (2020)
  • Chisholm v. Georgia (1793)
  • Marbury v. Madison (1803)
  • United States v. More (1805)
  • Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816)
  • American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton (1828)
  • Sheldon v. Sill (1850)
  • United States v. Jackalow (1862)
  • Ex parte Vallandigham (1864)
  • Ex parte McCardle (1869)
  • United States v. Klein (1871)
  • City of St. Louis v. Myers (1885)
  • Barrett v. United States (1898)
  • Burton v. United States I (1905)
  • Burton v. United States II (1906)
  • Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley (1908)
  • Muskrat v. United States (1911)
  • American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co. (1916)
  • Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co. (1921)
  • Hartsville Oil Mill v. United States (1926)
  • Wisconsin v. Illinois (1929)
  • Crowell v. Benson (1932)
  • Colegrove v. Green (1946)
  • Glidden Co. v. Zdanok (1962)
  • Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida (1974)
  • Arizona v. New Mexico (1976)
  • Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle (1977)
  • Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. (1982)
  • Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor (1986)
  • Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson (1986)
  • Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc. (1995)
  • JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Traffic Stream (BVI) Infrastructure Ltd. (2002)
  • Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg. (2005)
  • Bowles v. Russell (2007)
  • Patchak v. Zinke (2018)
  • DeFunis v. Odegaard (1974)
  • Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez (2016)
  • Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski (2021)
Political question
  • Baker v. Carr (1962)
  • Goldwater v. Carter (1979)
  • Nixon v. United States (1993)
  • Poe v. Ullman (1961)
  • Toilet Goods Ass’n, Inc. v. Gardner (1967)
  • Laird v. Tatum (1972)
  • Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City (1985)
  • Trump v. New York (2020)
  • Bailiff v. Tipping (1805)
  • Fairchild v. Hughes (1922)
  • Massachusetts v. Mellon (1923)
  • Ex parte Levitt (1937)
  • Altvater v. Freeman (1943)
  • Flast v. Cohen (1968)
  • Sierra Club v. Morton (1972)
  • United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (1973)
  • Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War (1974)
  • Warth v. Seldin (1975)
  • Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois (1977)
  • Pfizer Inc. v. Government of India (1978)
  • Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State (1982)
  • City of Los Angeles v. Lyons (1983)
  • Allen v. Wright (1984)
  • Diamond v. Charles (1986)
  • Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992)
  • Raines v. Byrd (1997)
  • FEC v. Akins (1998)
  • Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. (2000)
  • DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno (2006)
  • Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation (2007)
  • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007)
  • Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn (2011)
  • Bond v. United States (2011)
  • Clapper v. Amnesty International USA (2013)
  • Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (2016)
  • Texas v. Pennsylvania (2020)
  • Trump v. New York (2020)
  • Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski (2021)
  • TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez (2021)
  • Hayburn’s Case (1792)
  • County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State (1985)
  • Davis v. Bandemer (1986)
  • Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004)
  • Rucho v. Common Cause / Benisek v. Lamone (2019)
  • Ex parte Bollman (1807)
  • United States v. Burr (1807)
  • Cramer v. United States (1945)
  • Stuart v. Laird (1803)
  • Osborn v. Bank of the United States (1824)
  • Forrester v. White (1988)
  • Mistretta v. United States (1989)
  • Peretz v. United States (1991)
  • United States v. Hatter (2001)
  • Stern v. Marshall (2011)
  • Bank Markazi v. Peterson (2016)

Retrieved from “”

Video about Why Was The Decision In The Case Marbury V. Madison (1803) Of Great Importance In American History?

Marbury v. Madison Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Question about Why Was The Decision In The Case Marbury V. Madison (1803) Of Great Importance In American History?

If you have any questions about Why Was The Decision In The Case Marbury V. Madison (1803) Of Great Importance In American History?, please let us know, all your questions or suggestions will help us improve in the following articles!

The article Why Was The Decision In The Case Marbury V. Madison (1803) Of Great Importance In American History? was compiled by me and my team from many sources. If you find the article Why Was The Decision In The Case Marbury V. Madison (1803) Of Great Importance In American History? helpful to you, please support the team Like or Share!

Rate Articles Marbury v. Madison – Wikipedia

Rate: 4-5 stars
Ratings: 4149
Views: 13343255

Search keywords Why Was The Decision In The Case Marbury V. Madison (1803) Of Great Importance In American History?

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ►

Marbury v. Madison | 5 U.S. (Cranch 1) 137 (1803)
The presidential election of 1800 was one of the most contentious in our young nation’s history. Federalist President John Adams fought for reelection, but it became clear that the Anti-Federalists, led by Democratic-Republican and Vice President Thomas Jefferson, would take the office. Meanwhile, in an effort to preserve the influence of the party, the Federalist-led Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, now known as the Midnight Judges Act, which reorganized the federal judiciary, and the District of Columbia Organic Act, both of which created dozens of new judgeships and justiceships.

Adams then spent his last next few weeks in office appointing dozens of Federalists to the judiciary. These appointees became known as the midnight judges. The group obtained approval from Congress on March 2nd. The commissions were signed by Adams and sealed by the Secretary of State on March 3rd. The last remaining step was for the commissions to be physically delivered to the appointees by the Secretary of State.

Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here

The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ►

Have Questions about this Case?
Submit your questions and get answers from real attorney here:

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ►
Quimbee Case Brief App ►
Facebook ►
Twitter ►

casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Why Was The Decision In The Case Marbury V. Madison (1803) Of Great Importance In American History?
way Why Was The Decision In The Case Marbury V. Madison (1803) Of Great Importance In American History?
tutorial Why Was The Decision In The Case Marbury V. Madison (1803) Of Great Importance In American History?
Why Was The Decision In The Case Marbury V. Madison (1803) Of Great Importance In American History? free