Marbury v. Madison
5 U.S. 137 (1803) Facts of the Case: As President Adams was nearing the end of his term, he administered numerous “midnight appointments”, and one of them was Federalist, William Marbury to be a justice for peace for Washington, DC. When Jefferson succeeded and occupied the Presidency, he mandated his Secretary of State, James Madison not to deliver the commission to finalize the appointment of William Marbury. Marbury sought the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus that would in turn compel Madison to issue the commission.

Legal Questions: Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands? If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy? If they do afford him a …show more content…
Chief Justice Marshall wrote the majority opinion for the Marbury v Madison case. He upheld that the appointment made by then former President Adams to Marbury was valid and proceeded with compliance to the law. He therefore confirmed Marbury’s right to the writ he sought.
2. Because Marbury’s commission was deemed legitimate and his right to such commission was violated, he then deserved a remedy from his country.
3. Deciding whether the writ of mandamus was the remedy for the case was where Chief Justice Marshall spent his time on and referred to Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789. He explained that under that section, despite the authority given to the court to issue the mandamus, it is not able to do so due to conflicts it created with the statements congress has set forth.
4. Chief Justice Marshall deemed Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional as it only covered cases wherein the Supreme Court had original jurisdiction over. In this case, congress created conflict between themselves and the Constitution and upon facing this; the Courts are compelled to uphold the constitution because it is the supreme law of the land.
5. Ultimately, the court denied Marbury of his