Skip to content

Constitutional LawJudicial review

Marbury v. Madison

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided February 24, 1803 · Core case

Full citation

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).

VerifiedQuotes, pinpoints and citation checked word for word against the opinion; facts checked against the opinion before publication. October 16, 2026.

William Marbury

appointed justice of the peaceapplicant

James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States

secretary of state

The parties: William Marbury v. James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States.

Brief

Facts

In February 1801 Congress passed an act concerning the district of Columbia. It divided the district into two counties and provided for justices of the peace, appointed by the president, who would hold office for five years. With the advice and consent of the senate, John Adams, then president of the United States, signed a commission for William Marbury as a justice of the peace for the county of Washington. The seal of the United States was then affixed to it by the secretary of state. But the commission never reached Marbury. The secretary of state had received it, and it was withheld from Marbury. The case names James Madison as the Secretary of State. Marbury asked the Supreme Court itself for a mandamus, a court order commanding an officer to do a particular thing that belongs to his office and duty. He wanted the secretary of state ordered to deliver the commission. An act of congress, the act to establish the judicial courts of the United States, authorized the supreme court to issue writs of mandamus, where the principles and usages of law warranted them, to courts and to persons holding office under the authority of the United States.

Issues

  1. Did Marbury have a right to his commission once the President had signed it and the seal of the United States had been affixed?
  2. If that right was violated, do the laws of the country give Marbury a remedy against the secretary of state?
  3. Is that remedy a mandamus issuing from the Supreme Court, under an act of congress that lets the Court issue the writ to public officers?
  4. Can the Court give effect to an act of congress that conflicts with the Constitution?

Holding

Marbury had a vested legal right to his commission, the laws gave him a remedy, and a mandamus was the proper kind of remedy. But the act authorizing the Supreme Court to issue a mandamus to a public officer here gave the Court original jurisdiction that the Constitution does not allow. A law repugnant to the Constitution is void, so the Court could not issue the writ.

The rest of this brief is for subscribers

Subscribers also get the procedural history, the rule and the reasoning, the IRAC and CREAC versions, every key quote with its pinpoint, the citation box with parallel citations and short forms, and the exam angle. Subscriptions open after the Kindle launch period.

The Citation Code · citationcode.com/cases/marbury-v-madison