Marbury v. Madison – Case Brief (IRAC Format)

⚖️ Case Brief: Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Date: February 24, 1803
Citation: 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
Chief Justice: John Marshall
Decision: Unanimous (4–0)

❓ Issue
🧩 Whether or not the plaintiff, William Marbury, has a right to the writ of mandamus he has demanded and whether or not it be in the power of a court of law to issue such a writ? —Further, whether or no the act to Congress, passed on 24th of Feb., 1789, entitled "An act to establish the judicial courts of the United States," gives the Supreme Court of the United States "original jurisdiction" to issue such writ?

📘 Rule
📜 The Constitution is above all laws. Any law made by Congress—if it does not agree with the Constitution—will not apply. In such cases, the judiciary must see whether or not an act is constitutional and can stand.
→ Established Judicial Review.

📝 Facts

⏳ John Adams made many Midnight Judges in his last days under the Judiciary Act of 1801, and William Marbury was one of them appointed as a Justice of the Peace for the District of Columbia.
📦 But not all the commissions were delivered before Thomas Jefferson took office. The new president told his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver the rest of the commissions, which included Marbury’s.

Marbury lodged his application in the Supreme Court directly, praying for a writ of mandamus to compel Madison to deliver his commission, with authority alleged to be vested in him by Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Analysis🔍 ✅ '

Since Marbury had a right to the commission, he, thereby, had the right to ask for a legal remedy, which should be according to every legal right. Ubi jus ibi remedium.

3. Mandamus and Jurisdiction
❌ The Supreme Court is without original jurisdiction to issue the writ of mandamus.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 extended the mandamus jurisdiction improvidently:
Article III of the Constitution confines the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to a limited number of case types:
📣 Therefore, the 13th section of the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional.

✊ case establish Judicial Review, which enables the Court to annul laws in contravention of the Constitution.

⚖️ Though Marbury was entitled to have his commission and a remedy, the court was without jurisdiction to issue the latter.

Unconstitutional. Judiciary Act of 1789

This case is the cornerstone of that power which has been exercised by the court in many instances of interpreting the constitution.

🧠 Key Takeaways

✅ First case to establish Judicial Review in the U.S.

✅ It reinforced the Constitution as the supreme law and the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Terry v. Ohio Case Brief

  Terry v. Ohio Case Brief (1968) | IRAC Format Case Name: Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1 (1968) Issue 🔎 Does a police officer's stop and frisk of an individual without a warrant or probable cause violate the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures? Rule 📜 The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. However, a brief investigative stop ("stop and frisk") is allowed when a police officer has a reasonable suspicion , based on specific and articulable facts, that criminal activity is afoot and that the individual may be armed and dangerous. The frisk must be limited to a pat-down of outer clothing to check for weapons. Analysis 🧠 The Court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment’s protections are not absolute barriers to all police-citizen encounters. A balance must be struck between the individual’s right to personal security and the government's interest in crime prevention and officer safety. In Terry’s case...
Read more

Sweatt v. Painter – Case Brief (IRAC Format)

⚖️ Sweatt v. Painter , 339 U.S. 629 (1950) – IRAC Brief ❓ Issue Does the State of Texas, by denying Heman Marion Sweatt admission to the University of Texas Law School solely because he was Black, and instead offering him a separate law school for Black students, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? 📜 Rule The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States provides: “No State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” — U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 Under this rule, segregation in public education must provide substantially equal educational opportunities . If the separate facilities are not equal in quality, they violate the Constitution. 🔍 Analysis In 1946, Heman Marion Sweatt applied for admission to the University of Texas School of Law, the only public law school in the state at that time. Since it was a matter of course that the institution would return his application automatica...
Read more