Marbury Vs Madison Case Brief Summary

Words: 462
Pages: 2

Case Name and Citation:
Marbury v. Madison, (1803)

Facts: The Judiciary Act of 1801 gave the president and congress at the time the ability to put judicial members into office before the new president and congress came into office. This act gave the plaintiff a position as justice of the peace for the District of Columbia. The statement of his appointment was signed by the president before he left office, approved by the senate, and the seal of the U.S. was on the letter by the secretary of state. The appointment letter was to be sent to the plaintiff but was never received and by this time the new secretary of state and president were in office. The new secretary of state did not send out the appointment papers and the Judiciary Act
…show more content…
This goes against the constitution because it states the Supreme Court can only have original jurisdiction where cases involve ambassadors or consuls but does not include giving out a Writ of Mandamus which would fall under appellate jurisdiction.

Procedural History: The United States Supreme Court decided this case as this is the only instance where it has original jurisdiction since this case was about the positions of secretary of state and justice of the peace.

The court decided that the constitution states that the US Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over cases that involve ambassadors and consuls but in all other circumstances the court has appellate jurisdiction. The Judiciary Act of 1789 states that the US Supreme Court can give the Writ of Mandamus to courts and those in office under the US, which directly goes against the constitution. Giving the Writ of Mandamus to the plaintiff would go against the constitution, as the US Supreme Court would have to have appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, the defendant will not receive the Writ of Mandamus from the US Supreme Court because the Judiciary Act of 1789 is