Marbury v. Madison

Definition

Marbury v. Madison is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1803 that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, allowing courts to strike down laws that conflict with the Constitution. This case set a critical precedent for the federal court system, asserting the judiciary's role as a check on legislative and executive power.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The case arose when William Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to compel Secretary of State James Madison to deliver his commission as a justice of the peace.
2. Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that while Marbury had a right to his commission, the court did not have the jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus under the Judiciary Act of 1789.
3. Marshall's decision established that it is the role of the judiciary to interpret what the law is and to determine whether acts of Congress or state laws conflict with the Constitution.
4. This ruling marked the first time the Supreme Court struck down an act of Congress as unconstitutional, solidifying its power in judicial review.
5. Marbury v. Madison has been cited in numerous cases and discussions regarding judicial power, making it a cornerstone case for understanding the relationship between different branches of government.

Review Questions

• How did Marbury v. Madison change the relationship between the federal judiciary and other branches of government?
  • Marbury v. Madison significantly altered the balance of power among government branches by establishing judicial review. This empowered the federal judiciary to invalidate laws passed by Congress or actions taken by the executive branch if deemed unconstitutional. The case reinforced the judiciary's role as a co-equal branch of government, ensuring that it could act as a check on legislative and executive powers.
• Discuss how Marbury v. Madison reflects principles of judicial activism and restraint in its ruling.
  • Marbury v. Madison is often viewed through the lens of judicial activism, as it showcased the Supreme Court's willingness to assert its authority over legislative acts. By declaring part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, the Court took an active role in shaping law and policy. However, it also demonstrated elements of restraint, as Chief Justice Marshall recognized limits on judicial power by stating that while Marbury was entitled to his commission, the Court could not grant it due to jurisdictional constraints.
• Evaluate how Marbury v. Madison serves as a foundational case for understanding judicial review in a global context.
  • Marbury v. Madison is crucial for comprehending how judicial review operates not only in the United States but also in various legal systems worldwide. Its establishment of judicial review has influenced other nations' courts in asserting their roles in governance, ensuring that laws align with constitutional principles. By setting this precedent, it encourages comparative discussions about how different countries handle conflicts between legislation and constitutional mandates, reflecting broader themes in governance and human rights.

Related terms

Judicial Review: The power of courts to examine and invalidate actions of the legislative and executive branches if they are found to be unconstitutional.

Supreme Court: The highest court in the United States, which has the ultimate authority in interpreting the Constitution and federal law.

Separation of Powers: The division of government responsibilities into distinct branches to prevent any one branch from exercising the core functions of another.