The Power to Say No

The case

William Marbury wanted a commission appointing him a justice of the peace. It had been signed and sealed but not delivered. He asked the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus: an order directing Secretary of State James Madison to deliver it. The dispute required the Court to consider both Marbury's entitlement and its own authority to provide the requested remedy.

Official U.S. Reports opinion (PDF), pp. 154–180.

What the Court decided

Chief Justice John Marshall concluded that Marbury had a right to the commission and that withholding it violated that right. Yet the Supreme Court could not issue the order in this proceeding. The provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that the Court read as authorising this exercise of original jurisdiction conflicted with Article III of the Constitution.

The Court treated the Constitution as superior to an inconsistent statute and declined to give effect to that statutory authorisation. Marbury received no commission through the judgment. The decision became a foundational statement of judicial review: courts must determine which rule governs when an ordinary law conflicts with the Constitution.

Official U.S. Reports opinion (PDF), pp. 154–180.

Why it is worth thinking about

There is an arresting asymmetry in the result. The Court articulated a powerful principle while refusing the immediate relief requested. Its authority was expressed through an account of its own limits.

That makes the case more interesting than a simple story of judges acquiring power. A constitutional system must distinguish between recognising an injury and possessing jurisdiction to repair it. Otherwise the urgency of a claim could become its own source of authority.

The enduring question is who can require government to justify its actions against a higher rule. Marbury supplies a judicial answer, but it also makes the judges part of the problem they are solving. A court that insists others respect constitutional boundaries must explain where its own boundaries lie.

Read the decision

Marbury v. Madison — archived U.S. Reports scan (PDF)

5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). Reading reference: pp. 154–180 in the printed report. Archive: Library of Congress, United States Reports collection.

Historical analysis of this decision. Later cases can qualify a rule or its remedies; this piece does not survey subsequent developments.