Marbury v. Madison: The Enduring Legacy of Judicial Review.
On July 14th, 2025, as I walked down the aisle of the Supreme Court building, I felt a familiar flutter of unease—perhaps akin to the daunting scrutiny of a Socratic lecture, a fear almost all law students can recall. As students of law, we constantly hear about the grand, historic decisions taken by this very court, and how they shaped our American legal system. I couldn't help but wonder if Justice Marshall, on that pivotal day, truly envisioned that his decision would not only define America but also serve as a source of inspiration for other countries and governments to follow.
For many who haven't spent hours trying to understand it for their law lectures, or for those less familiar with the workings of jurisprudence, "Marbury v. Madison" might sound like a dusty old legal case. Yet, it remains one of the most foundational decisions in U.S. history. Decided in 1803, this single ruling established a principle so powerful it transformed the entire landscape of American law: Judicial Review.
The Backstory: A Political Firestorm
To understand Marbury, you have to go back to the heated political climate of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Many would argue that by 2025, little has changed in America, given the similarly heated political climate.
During that time, the Federalist Party, led by President John Adams, was losing power to Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans. In a last ditch effort to maintain influence, Adams appointed a slew of Federalist judges and justices of the peace in the final days of his presidency. These were dubbed the "Midnight Judges."
One of these appointees was William Marbury, who was appointed as a justice of the peace for the District of Columbia. However, his commission (the official document confirming his appointment) wasn't delivered before Jefferson took office.
When Jefferson became president, he instructed his Secretary of State, James Madison, to withhold these undelivered commissions. Marbury, understandably upset, sued Madison, asking the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus – a legal order compelling a government official to perform an act.
Chief Justice John Marshall's Masterstroke
The case landed on the desk of Chief Justice John Marshall, a staunch Federalist and Adams's former Secretary of State. This put him in a tricky position. If the Court ordered Madison to deliver the commission, Jefferson's administration would likely ignore it, making the Supreme Court appear weak and ineffective. If the Court sided with Madison, it would look like it was caving to political pressure.
However, Marshall found a way to navigate this dilemma. He broke the decision into three key questions:
Did William Marbury have a right to the commission? Marshall affirmed this, noting that the appointment was made, and the commission was signed and sealed; delivery was merely a formality.
If Marbury had a right, and that right was violated, did the law provide him a remedy? Again, Marshall affirmed this, stating that for every legal right, there must be a legal remedy.
If there was a remedy, could the Supreme Court issue it (i.e., issue a writ of mandamus)? This proved to be the pivotal question.
Marshall examined the Judiciary Act of 1789, the law that had established the federal court system. He found that this act granted the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus in cases like Marbury's. However, Marshall then turned his attention to the U.S. Constitution.
The Birth of Judicial Review
Marshall declared that the Judiciary Act of 1789, by granting the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus in this type of case, was in conflict with Article III of the Constitution.
Article III outlines the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction (cases it hears first) and appellate jurisdiction (cases it hears on appeal). Marshall argued that the Constitution clearly defined the Court's original jurisdiction, and Congress could not expand it through legislation.
This led to Marshall's monumental conclusion: When an act of Congress conflicts with the Constitution, it is the duty of the judicial branch to declare that act unconstitutional.
In his famous words, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."
Therefore, while Marbury did have a right to his commission, the Supreme Court could not issue the writ of mandamus because the part of the Judiciary Act that allowed it was unconstitutional. Marbury lost his job, but the Supreme Court gained immense power.
Why It Matters Today
Marbury v. Madison is significant for several reasons:
Established Judicial Review: This is perhaps the most significant outcome. It gave the Supreme Court (and by extension, all federal courts) the authority to strike down laws passed by Congress or actions taken by the President if they violate the Constitution. It cemented the judiciary's role as an equal and independent branch of government.
Checks and Balances: It reinforced the system of checks and balances, ensuring that no single branch of government becomes too powerful. The judiciary acts as a crucial check on the legislative and executive branches.
Constitutional Supremacy: It affirmed that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that all other laws must conform to it.
Essentially, Marbury v. Madison transformed the Supreme Court from a relatively minor player into a powerful arbiter of the Constitution, a role it continues to play today. It set the stage for countless future landmark decisions that have shaped American society, from civil rights to environmental protection.
Without Marbury v. Madison, the balance of power in American government would look very different. It's a testament to the foresight of Chief Justice Marshall that a case seemingly about a single undelivered commission could have such a profound and lasting impact on the rule of law.
References
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
National Archives, Marbury v. Madison, National Archives (July 28, 2025), https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/marbury-v-madison.
By: Arjan Bir Sodhi Masters in Law in Dispute Resolution, Pepperdine University
For: LexRepublica
