You are on page 1of 5

º  


  
©   
   

  

   
   
c   

      
 V

      


  
    
 
     
   
 
  
    

 
!
 "  #    On his last day in office, President John Adams named forty-two
   

 
    #   justices of the peace and sixteen new circuit court justices for the
     District of Columbia under the Organic Act. The Organic Act
    #    was an attempt by the Federalists to take control of the federal
      $  judiciary before Thomas Jefferson took office.
 
   
%  #      The commissions were signed by President Adams and sealed by
         acting Secretary of State John Marshall (who later became Chief
 
       Justice of the Supreme Court and author of this opinion), but
      
  they were not delivered before the expiration of Adams¶s term as
    
     president. Thomas Jefferson refused to honor the commissions,
 
         claiming that they were invalid because they had not been
 
 
   delivered by the end of Adams¶s term.
&
  % "
'   
 © (
 William Marbury (P) was an intended recipient of an
appointment as justice of the peace. Marbury applied directly to
)    % " * + 
the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of mandamus
,-
  % " ,-
 to compel Jefferson¶s Secretary of State, James Madison (D), to
©         
deliver the commissions. The Judiciary Act of 1783 had granted
  !.* /,* 0/ the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of
mandamus ³«to any courts appointed, or persons holding
1 -    office, under the authority of the United States.´
   '     
   
     

   
    . ' º
 
 
  2   '
   #     .  1.V Does Marbury have a right to the commission?
     '     2.V Does the law grant Marbury a remedy?
/         3.V Does the Supreme Court have the authority to review acts
  
        
     
       of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional and
  therefore void?
4.V Can Congress expand the scope of the Supreme Court¶s
original jurisdiction beyond what is specified in Article III of the
Constitution?
5.V Does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction to
issue writs of mandamus?
a
    
  
 
       
Ú   

        
     1.V `es. Marbury has a right to the commission.
ü
#  (
  
  3
 4   
   The order granting the commission takes effect when the
     ©  
  Executive¶s constitutional power of appointment has been
       exercised, and the power has been exercised when the last act
       & required from the person possessing the power has been
 
     5  performed. The grant of the commission to Marbury became
  &      


  
 &
 '
effective when signed by President Adams.
1 5#
'         2.V `es. The law grants Marbury a remedy. The very essence
   #
    '   of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual

'   6
 /  to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an
      #
 injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that
©        protection.
&
 ' * 
5#
'    +   5 
 Where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights
$          depend upon the performance of that duty, the individual who
         '  considers himself injured has a right to resort to the law for a
 '     
remedy. The President, by signing the commission, appointed
+   5 
   Marbury a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. The
       
  seal of the United States, affixed thereto by the Secretary of
   State, is conclusive testimony of the verity of the signature, and
/ 
  /*      of the completion of the appointment. Having this legal right to

       &
 '  the office, he has a consequent right to the commission, a refusal
 789   
  : to deliver which is a plain violation of that right for which the
;'  
 5   laws of the country afford him a remedy.

  ' 3.V `es. The Supreme Court has the authority to review acts
of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional and
;5  
  

     
  '  therefore void.
  &
 ' © #' 
 
         It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what
   #
    the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of
   necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict
;5  
   with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.
     
  '  If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is
  &
 ' © #'      superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution,
 
  <   
  and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they
   5 
  
   &
   
both apply.
4.V No. Congress cannot expand the scope of the Supreme
+  '   
   Court¶s original jurisdiction beyond what is specified in Article
,-
  *
: III of the Constitution.
   
  - 
 '     
 " The Constitution states that ³the Supreme Court shall have
       original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other
 5    
public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be
%

)  
 
1 
&
  1
  
   < '    
. 
:V 1 ' )   - " a party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have
appellate jurisdiction.´ If it had been intended to leave it in the
  
&
 '   
©  789 
  #
  (
  # ' discretion of the Legislature to apportion the judicial power

 
   ©     
  
  $    


between the Supreme and inferior courts according to the will of
    (
 that body, this section is mere surplusage and is entirely without
5 
     
 
  
  
 


 
  
       
meaning. If Congress remains at liberty to give this court
       '     appellate jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared their
*  ü. - (
 
   
 * 
  *  jurisdiction shall be original, and original jurisdiction where the
    
   
 ' Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of
/ 
  
  &
 '   
  jurisdiction made in the Constitution, is form without substance.

  '      5.V No. The Supreme Court does not have original
ü    

 $   
  


 
  :
 #'      jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus.
 
5#
'  ='
 5   1 
 #
      
  To enable this court then to issue a mandamus, it must be shown
;. 
 * 
 
  
 * 

' 
 

#       to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to
  #'   
         
  enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction.
5 *
;*   It is the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction that it revises
(
       
 and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted, and
does not create that case. Although, therefore, a mandamus may
;
 '   -
 
be directed to courts, yet to issue such a writ to an officer for the

   
 
  ' delivery of a paper is, in effect, the same as to sustain an original
action for that paper, and is therefore a matter of original
;
 '       jurisdiction.
       
  '

3  
Application for writ of mandamus denied. Marbury doesn¶t get
the commission.

See ë  
 for a constitutional law case brief
holding that that the Constitution gives Congress the express
power to make exceptions to the Supreme Court¶s appellate
jurisdiction.

 Ú  



The state of Virginia enacted legislation during the
Revolutionary War that gave the State the power to confiscate
the property of British Loyalists. Hunter was given a grant of
´.'  #  ©  # 
    
    
  
      land by the State. Denny Martin held the land under devise from
             Lord Thomas Fairfax.
      # >
  .- %- .  #    In an action in ejectment, the trial court found in favor of Martin
        # - and the court of appeals (the highest Virginia state court)
#-
reversed. The Supreme Court of the United States reversed in
.'  #  ©  #   favor of Martin, holding that the treaty with England superseded
   
       the state statute, and remanded the case to the Virginia court of

         appeals to enter judgment for Martin. The Virginia court refused,
          
     # >   .- asserting that the appellate power of the U.S. Supreme Court did
%- .  #      not extend to judgments from the Virginia court of appeals.
      # - #-?
º
V Does the U.S. Supreme Court have appellate jurisdiction
over state court decisions involving federal law?

Ú 
V `es. The U.S. Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction
over state court decisions involving federal law.

The federal power was given directly by the people and not by
the States. Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S.
Constitution states that ³in all other cases before mentioned the
Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction´. This
demonstrates a textual commitment to allow Supreme Court
review of state decisions.

If the Supreme Court could not review decisions from the


highest State courts, the state courts necessarily would be
excluded from hearing cases involving questions of federal law.
It had already been established that state courts have the power
to rule on issues of federal law, and therefore the Supreme Court
must be able to review those decisions. The Court also held that
the Supremacy Clause states that the federal interpretation
trumps the states¶ interpretation.

The Court rejected concerns regarding state judicial sovereignty.


The Supreme Court could already review state executive and
legislative decisions and this case was no different. Story then
confronted the arguments that state judges were bound to uphold
the Constitution just as federal judges were, and so denying state
interpretations presumed that the state judges would less than
faithfully interpret the Constitution. The Court stated that the
´.'  #  ©  # 
    
    
  
      issue did not concern bias; rather, it concerned the need for
             uniformity in federal law. The Supreme Court concluded that the
      # > decision by the Virginia court of appeals was in error.
  .- %- .  #   
        # -
#- 3  
.'  #  ©  #  
   
       Judgment reversed.

        
           Fifty years after the Supreme Court handed down this opinion, it
     # >   .- held in ë   
 that while the Court¶s appellate
%- .  #      jurisdiction is subject to exceptions and regulations imposed by
      # - #-?
Congress, it is derived from the Constitution itself and not from
acts of Congress.

Facts of the Case:

An act of Congress authorized the operation of a lottery in the


District of Columbia. The Cohen brothers proceeded to sell D.C.
lottery tickets in the state of Virginia, violating state law. State
authorities tried and convicted the Cohens, and then declared
themselves to be the final arbiters of disputes between the states
and the national government.

Question:

Did the Supreme Court have the power under the Constitution to
review the Virginia Supreme Court's ruling?

Conclusion:

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the Supreme Court


had jurisdiction to review state criminal proceedings. Chief
Justice Marshall wrote that the Court was bound to hear all cases
that involved constitutional questions, and that this jurisdiction
was not dependent on the identity of the parties in the cases.
Marshall argued that state laws and constitutions, when
repugnant to the Constitution and federal laws, were "absolutely
void." After establishing the Court's jurisdiction, Marshall
declared the lottery ordinance a local matter and concluded that
the Virginia court was correct to fine the Cohens brothers for
violating Virginia law.

You might also like