Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Marbury v. Madison

Supreme Court of the United States · 1803 · Constitutional Law

judicial reviewseparation of powerssupremacy of Constitutionmandamusoriginal jurisdictionappellate jurisdictionministerial dutyexecutive discretion

Facts

An act of Congress authorized the appointment of justices of the peace in the District of Columbia for five-year terms. Marbury's commission as a justice of the peace for Washington County was signed by President Adams and sealed by the Secretary of State, but it was never delivered to Marbury. Marbury claimed a right to the office and sought a writ of mandamus compelling the Secretary of State to deliver the commission. The case therefore turned on whether his appointment was complete, whether the law afforded a remedy, and whether that remedy could be granted by this Court.

Issue

Whether Marbury had a vested legal right to his commission, whether the laws of the United States afforded a remedy for the withholding of that commission, and whether the Supreme Court could issue a writ of mandamus to provide that remedy in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.

Rule

An appointment by the President is complete when the President has performed the last act required of him, which is signing the commission; when the seal of the United States is affixed, the commission is complete and the appointee has a vested legal right if the office is not removable at will. Where a specific duty is assigned by law and individual rights depend on its performance, the officer charged with that duty is amenable to the laws and may be compelled by mandamus if no other specific legal remedy exists. But the Supreme Court may exercise only the original jurisdiction granted by the Constitution, and Congress cannot enlarge that original jurisdiction; therefore, a statute purporting to authorize original mandamus in a case outside Article III is unconstitutional and void.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The President nominated Elena Ortiz to a fixed four-year federal inspection post in Ohio, and the Senate consented. The President signed her commission, but before it was delivered, a department clerk set it aside and never sent it; the office by statute is not removable at will.

Under the majority's reasoning, when did Elena's legal right to the office vest?

Explanation. The majority treated appointment and delivery as distinct. Where the President has done the last act required of him—signing the commission—the appointment is made; at the latest, once the seal is affixed the commission is complete. Delivery and acceptance are not necessary to vest the right, especially where the office is not removable at will.