Judicial branch · Landmark case
Marbury v. Madison
5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) · Opinion of the Court
What you should know
This page explains the Court’s holding in plain language, where the official text lives, and what to check next.
Supreme Court findings are not news summaries. The controlling document is the Court’s opinion. Use this profile to understand the holding, then verify language and context on official sources before relying on a secondary account.
The Court held that William Marbury had a right to his commission as a justice of the peace, and that the law provided a remedy — but that the Supreme Court could not issue the writ of mandamus Marbury sought, because the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that purported to give the Court that original jurisdiction was itself unconstitutional. In reaching that result, Chief Justice Marshall declared that it is “emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is” — establishing the power of judicial review.
Background
In the final days of the Adams administration, after the contentious election of 1800, the outgoing Federalist Congress created new judgeships and Adams filled them with Federalist appointees. William Marbury was one of those appointees; his commission was signed and sealed but not delivered before Jefferson took office. Jefferson’s Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver it. Marbury sued directly in the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus ordering delivery.
Marshall faced a political bind: order Madison to deliver the commission and risk defiance by the Jefferson administration, or deny Marbury relief and appear weak. His opinion threaded the needle by affirming the right and the remedy in principle while holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction under the Constitution to grant that particular form of relief.
Judicial review — the power of courts to invalidate statutes and executive actions that conflict with the Constitution — is not spelled out in the constitutional text.
Marbury is the foundational case that claimed and explained that power. Nearly every later case in which the Court strikes down a law or executive action rests, ultimately, on the principle Marshall articulated here.
Vote and authorship
| Majority | Marshall, C.J. |
|---|---|
| Join | Paterson, Chase, Washington |
| Not participating | Cushing (ill); Moore (not yet seated for argument) |
| Dissent | None |
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.
Chief Justice Marshall · Marbury v. Madison
How it fits in government
Judicial branch
Establishes the Court’s power to interpret the Constitution and invalidate conflicting acts of the other branches.
Separation of powers
Defines a core check the judiciary holds against Congress and the executive.
Article III
The opinion grounds judicial review in the nature of a written constitution and the judicial role under Article III.
Official records visitors may need
SupremeCourt.gov
Opinions, docket, rules
Opinion text (LII)
Readable public text
National Archives
Milestone documents context