This is what the majority of people do not know about the most significant court case in American history.
The gentleman in the middle of it lost.
William Marbury approached the Supreme Court in a petition claiming that he was entitled to a job in the government. The Court agreed he deserved it. The Court found that he had been aggrieved. Then the Court said it could not help him and sent him home empty-handed.
And by so doing, Chief Justice John Marshall silently gave a power to the courts so large a power that it continues to impact every aspect of American law to this day.
That is Marbury v. Madison. One case. One lost job. One ruling that made courts the final word on what the Constitution means.
This is where the power originates, in case you were ever left wondering why a judge can overturn a law that Congress enacted and the President signed.
The Political Grudge Behind the Case
Adams, Jefferson, and a Very Bitter Election
To understand Marbury v. Madison, you need to understand the bad blood between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.
Adams was a Federalist. He believed in a strong national government, close ties with Britain, and a powerful central court system. Jefferson was the opposite of Adams. He headed the Democratic-Republican Party, which desired power to be kept nearer to the states, not in federal courts, not in federal banks, everything the Federalists had years to construct.
Jefferson beat Adams in the 1800 election. Adams was acquainted with that. As soon as Jefferson entered the door of the presidency, the Federalists were finished.
And Adams did what politicians do when they are losing and have some weeks of power left. He used it.
The Midnight Appointments
During his last days as president, Adams collaborated with a Congress dominated by Federalists to establish dozens of new judicial positions. New circuit judges. New justices of the peace. Before Jefferson could prevent it, all of them were filled with Federalist supporters. His subjects ridiculed them as the Midnight Judges, since Adams was signing appointments as late as he could.
Among such appointments was one of William Marbury, a Maryland businessman and a staunch supporter of Adams. He was to be a Justice of the Peace at Washington, D.C. His commission was signed. It was sealed. All it had to do was be handed to him physically.
That never happened.
Adams was out of time. Jefferson was sworn in. And Jefferson told his new Secretary of State, James Madison, to hold back the undelivered commissions. Jefferson was very straightforward in his line of thought: the appointment was invalid, unless the paper was received before Adams was out of office. No job, no delivery. Simple as that.
Marbury disagreed. He approached the Supreme Court where he sought something termed as writ of mandamus, a court order that would compel Madison to deliver the document.
That petition for a simple delivery order turned into the most studied legal decision in American history.
The Three Questions Marshall Asked
A Judge Who Should Have Stepped Aside
Before getting into the decision itself, there is something worth sitting with for a moment.
John Marshall, the Chief Justice who wrote the opinion, was John Adams’s former Secretary of State. He was the one who had sealed Marbury’s commission in the first place. The document that never got delivered? That was on Marshall’s watch. By modern standards, he would almost certainly have had to recuse himself from this case.
He did not. And most legal historians believe that was no accident. Marshall had been looking for the right case to settle something bigger than a job dispute. When Marbury landed on his docket, he saw exactly what he needed.
Marshall built his opinion around three questions, answered in order.
Question One: Did Marbury Have a Right to His Commission?
Yes. Marshall was direct about this. The commission had been signed by Adams and sealed by the Secretary of State. That completed the appointment. Whether it was physically delivered afterward was just a formality, not a legal requirement. Madison holding it back was a violation of Marbury’s legal right.
This was a direct shot at Jefferson. Marshall was telling the world that the President had broken the law.
Question Two: Did the Law Give Marbury a Remedy?
Again, yes. Marshall referred to one of the most ancient principles of law, which had its origin in Roman law: the right to have a right is the right to have a remedy. Marbury had been aggrieved. Courts are there to deal with injustices. This situation was best addressed with a writ of mandamus.
Two questions asked. Two answers in Marbury’s favor. Jefferson had to be watching this unfold with some discomfort.
Question Three: Could the Supreme Court Actually Issue That Writ?
Here is where Marshall pulled the floor out from under everyone.
No.
How Marshall Used a Loss to Build Something Bigger
The Judiciary Act Problem
When Marbury requested the Supreme Court to intervene, he was under Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which seemingly granted the Court authority to grant writs of mandamus in situations such as his.
But Marshall consulted Article III of the Constitution, which enumerates precisely when the Supreme Court shall have the right to hear a case first, before any other court. Cases where a state is a party. Criminal cases of foreign diplomats. Cases of disagreements on undelivered government papers of jobs are not listed.
Section 13 of the Judiciary Act was trying to give the Supreme Court a power the Constitution had not given it. Congress had tried to expand the Court’s jurisdiction through regular legislation. And Marshall said Congress cannot do that. The Constitution is not something you can quietly rewrite by passing a bill.
Because Section 13 conflicted with the Constitution, Marshall declared it void. And because that law was the only thing giving the Court authority over Marbury’s case, the Court had no jurisdiction. It could not issue the writ. Marbury lost.
Jefferson got exactly what he wanted. Marbury went home without his commission.
What Marshall Actually Won
Consider the strategic point of view of what has just occurred. This is truly stunning, and I marvel each time I pass through it.
Marshall first ruled that Jefferson had acted illegally. He put that on record. Then he ruled against Marbury on jurisdiction, handing Jefferson the outcome he wanted. Jefferson could not complain too loudly because he had technically won.
But in throwing out Section 13, Marshall did something Jefferson could not undo: he claimed for the courts the power to strike down any law that conflicts with the Constitution. Not just this law. Any law. From Congress, from the President, from anyone.
Historian Robert McCloskey termed the opinion as a work of indirection. Legal scholar Laurence Tribe referred to it as awe-inspiring. One thought recurs upon me, that it was one of the clearest instances in the history of law of a man who lost a battle, and won the whole war without the other party’s knowing it until it was too late.
What Judicial Review Actually Means
The Power Courts Had Always Needed
The Constitution does not say in plain language that courts can strike down laws. That is one reason this decision has been argued over for more than two hundred years.
Marshall’s argument rested on something close to basic logic. The Constitution is written down for a reason. If limits on government power are written but no one can enforce them, they are not really limits at all. Someone has to decide what the Constitution permits and what it does not. Marshall argued that courts, whose job is to interpret the law, are the natural place for that to happen.
The line from the opinion that every law student eventually memorizes is this: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
He also made a point that is hard to argue with even today. If courts are forced to apply laws that violate the Constitution, they end up choosing the lesser rule over the greater one. Congress would become all-powerful. Any law it passed, no matter how unconstitutional, would stand simply because no one could stop it.
The Supremacy Logic
Marshall leaned on what lawyers call the Supremacy Clause, the part of the Constitution that says the Constitution itself is the supreme law of the land. Laws made by Congress are valid only when they follow it. When they do not, they are not really valid laws at all. Courts that apply them anyway are not upholding the law. They are undermining it.
That argument has held up. Not without criticism, not without debate, but it has held up.
Why This Case Still Matters Right Now
Every Major Constitutional Fight Traces Back Here
Judicial review was not invoked by the Supreme Court again to invalidate a federal law until over half a century after Marbury. By the time it came, in 1857, with the Dred Scott decision, the outcome was a moral disaster that contributed to the Civil war. Never again was the power which Marshall had asserted in 1803 seriously disputed.
The way the American constitutional law operates is based on judicial review nowadays. Whenever the Supreme Court invalidates a federal statute, a state law or an executive order, it is exercising the authority that was set up in Marbury. Gun legislation, campaign finance regulations, immigration, civil rights. It all is put to the test of the Constitution. Here began that mechanism of testing.
Nixon Had to Hand Over the Tapes
Something significant, too, was resolved in the case concerning the relations between the courts and the presidency. President Nixon declined to hand over tape recordings of his conversations at the White House in the Watergate case in 1974. His attorneys claimed that he was entitled to refuse them.
The Supreme Court disagreed. The Court ordered Nixon to comply citing principles, which go directly back to Marbury. He did. In weeks, he resigned.
An 1803 case over an unfinished job commission would later yield a decision that would oust an incumbent president.
The Part People Still Argue About
Is It Democratic for Unelected Judges to Override Elected Officials?
This is a fair question and one I do not think has a clean answer.
Federal judges are not elected. They serve for life. Giving them the power to invalidate laws passed by Congress and signed by the President is not a small thing. Some legal scholars have spent entire careers arguing that Marshall read the power of judicial review into the Constitution in a way the text does not actually support.
Marshall’s response, built into the opinion, is that the power belongs to the Constitution itself, not to the judges personally. Courts are not overruling Congress because they disagree with a law. They are enforcing the document the people ratified as the supreme law. The judges are referees, not rulers.
Whether that distinction satisfies you depends a lot on whether you trust how referees call the game. Americans have been debating it since 1803.
Was Marshall Even Allowed to Sit on This Case?
Most likely not, in modern times. He had made Marbury sign his commission. He was directly involved in the action that resulted in the lawsuit. One of the most-deplored issues of the case in the eyes of legal scholars is his failure to recuse himself.
But the majority of historians also believe that this case was desired by Marshall. He had long been looking to a proper time to entrench judicial review and Marbury provided just that. The question of whether the procedural means were justified by the ends is another argument that can never have a clean cut finish line.
The Bottom Line
Marbury v. Madison is not famous because a man lost his government job. It is famous because of what Chief Justice Marshall built while ruling that the man could not be helped.
He used a minor political dispute, driven by a post-election grudge between two presidents who could barely stand each other, to permanently establish that courts are the final check on whether laws follow the Constitution.
Every constitutional case argued in every courtroom in this country rests on the foundation Marshall put in place on February 24, 1803. A foundation built on a commission that was never delivered, a writ that was never issued, and a ruling that ruled against the man who brought it.
Marbury v. Madison might be the most consequential loss in the history of American law.
The author is a practicing attorney with a focus on constitutional and administrative law. This article is written for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.
Connect with me on LinkedIn for legal drafting, legal research and other legal matters!
