Rule
It is the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is; when a statute conflicts with the Constitution, the Court must give effect to the Constitution and declare the statute void.
Facts
In the final days of President John Adams's administration, Secretary of State John Marshall signed and sealed commissions for several justices of the peace, including William Marbury. However, not all commissions were delivered before the new administration took office. President Thomas Jefferson's Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver the remaining commissions. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court directly for a writ of mandamus compelling Madison to deliver the commission, invoking original jurisdiction under Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Issue
Does the Supreme Court have the authority to review acts of Congress and declare them unconstitutional? Specifically, does Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which purports to grant the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, conflict with Article III of the Constitution?
Holding
The Supreme Court held that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because it attempted to expand the Court's original jurisdiction beyond what Article III permits. The Court established that it has the power of judicial review — the authority to declare acts of Congress that conflict with the Constitution to be void and unenforceable.
Reasoning
Chief Justice Marshall's opinion proceeded in three steps: (1) Marbury had a right to his commission once it was signed and sealed; (2) the law affords Marbury a remedy for the violation of that right; but (3) the Supreme Court cannot issue the remedy because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act unconstitutionally expanded the Court's original jurisdiction. Marshall reasoned that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it is the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. When a statute conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution must prevail.
Significance
Marbury v. Madison is the foundational case establishing judicial review in American constitutional law. It confirmed that federal courts have the authority to strike down legislation that conflicts with the Constitution, making the judiciary a co-equal branch of government. This principle remains the cornerstone of American constitutionalism and has been cited in virtually every major constitutional law case since.
Subsequent History
Never overruled. Universally accepted as settled law. The principle of judicial review has been reaffirmed in countless subsequent decisions including Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816), Cooper v. Aaron (1958), and City of Boerne v. Flores (1997).
Majority Opinion — Marshall, J.
Opinion summary coming soon.