Case Brief

Jude Akinleyimu

Criminal Procedure

Prof. Kawucha

1/22/2013

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

FACTS:

Marbury was appointed a justice of the peace at the very end of Adams presidential term, one day before the changing of the guard, and the appointment was pushed through and confirmed by the Senate. The new administration filed for repeal and got a hold of it with the statue creating the courts and refused to grant Marbury’s commission. Marbury sued incoming Secretary of State James Madison in the Supreme Court for a writ of Mandamus, which orders public official to perform a duty under the law.

ISSUES(S):

1. Does Marbury have right to commission? YES

2. Does the law grant Marbury a remedy? YES

3. Does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus? YES

COURT DECISION:

Application for writ of mandamus denied. Marbury doesn’t get the commission.

RATIONALE FOR THE DECIOSION:

a. Marbury has a right to the commission because; the order granting the commission takes effect when the Executive’s constitutional power of appointment has been exercised, and the power has been exercised when the last act required from the person possessing the power has been performed. The grant of the commission to Marbury became effective when signed by President Adams. It is valid because the appointment was done in full while Adams was still President.  He completed the entire task of the appointment process and did all he could do in such completion.  The appointment is valid when the President undertakes his final act required for the appointment, not upon delivery of the appointment which is beyond the President’s control.  Marbury is entitled to appointment as a remedy because it was a right given to him by President Adams.  In this sense, Marbury was given a specific right.  The very essence of government is to provide remedies to rights that are abridged.

b. The law grants Marbury a remedy because; the very essence of...