Under the administrations of Washington and his
successor, John Adams, only members of the ruling Federalist Party
were appointed to the bench, and under the terms of the Constitution,
they held office for life during "good behavior." (See
Constitution,
Article III.) Thus, when the opposing Republicans
won the election of 1800, the Jeffersonians found that while they
controlled the presidency and Congress, the Federalists still
dominated the judiciary.* One of the first acts of the new administration
was to repeal the Judiciary Act of 1800, which had created a number
of new judgeships. Although President Adams had attempted to fill
the vacancies prior to the end of his term, a number of commissions
had not been delivered, and one of the appointees, William Marbury,
sued Secretary of State James Madison to force him to deliver
his commission as a justice of the peace.
The new chief justice, John Marshall, understood
that if the Court awarded Marbury a writ of mandamus (an order
to force Madison to deliver the commission) the Jefferson administration
would ignore it, and thus significantly weaken the authority of
the courts. On the other hand, if the Court denied the writ, it
might well appear that the justices had acted out of fear. Either
case would be a denial of the basic principle of the supremacy
of the law.
Marshall's decision in this case has been hailed
as a judicial tour de force. In essence, he declared that Madison
should have delivered the commission to Marbury, but then held
that the section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that gave the Supreme
Court the power to issue writs of mandamus exceeded the authority
allotted the Court under Article III of the Constitution, and
was therefore null and void (see Constitution,
Article III). Thus he was able to chastise the Jeffersonians
and yet not create a situation in which a court order would be
flouted.
The critical importance of Marbury is the assumption
of several powers by the Supreme Court. One was the authority
to declare acts of Congress, and by implication acts of the president,
unconstitutional if they exceeded the powers granted by the Constitution.
But even more important, the Court became the arbiter of the Constitution,
the final authority on what the document meant. As such, the Supreme
Court became in fact as well as in theory an equal partner in
government, and it has played that role ever since.
The Court would not declare another act of Congress
unconstitutional until 1857, and it has used that power sparingly.
But through its role as arbiter of the Constitution, it has, especially
in the twentieth century, been the chief agency for the expansion
of individual rights.
*JMU Editor: "Jeffersonians"
and "Republicans" refer to the adherents of the same
party, the party of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, which
at this web site will consistently be referred to as the Democratic-Republican
party. The "Federalists" were the party of John Adams
and Alexander Hamilton. For more on the party system, go to Political
Parties.
For further reading: George
L. Haskins and Herbert A. Johnson, Foundations of Power: John
Marshall, 1801-1815 (1981); Donald O. Dewey, Marshall
v. Jefferson: The Political Background of Marbury v. Madison
(1970).
Note: this document is downloaded
from the US Information Agency web site, but may no longer be
available at that site. It is an excerpt from a longer piece,
Basic Readings in US Democracy, by Melvin I. Urofsky,
Professor of Constitutional History, Virginia Commonwealth University,
Richmond, Virginia.
