Transcription
Hey everybody! Welcome back. Marbury versus Madison is the OG landmark Supreme Court case. The Godfather itself. So I'll make you an offer you can't refuse: go ahead and smash that like button. There's no doubt about it: Marbury versus Madison is the most consequential Supreme Court case in American history.
Before you get mad at me and are like, "Well, what about Brown versus Board, and Miranda versus Arizona, and Obergefell versus Hodges?" All I'm saying is that without Marbury versus Madison, the court wouldn't even have the power to rule in any of those cases. Marbury walked so Gideon and Obergefell could run.
Okay, let's start with the facts. I'll be honest, the backstory can be a little bit confusing, but don't stress it too much. So my guy John Adams—yeah, I'm a fan—was in the last few days of his presidency, and he made a bunch of appointments. You might have heard this derogatorily called the "Midnight Judges" in APUSH. Anyway, one of the guys that received an appointment from Adams was a dude named William Marbury. Marbury was appointed to be a Justice of the Peace in Washington, D.C. The Senate confirmed the appointments, including Marbury's.
The next part is a technical detail, but it's how we got this case. After the Senate confirms appointments, the Secretary of State officially delivers the commission to the appointee, and they officially begin their job. Unfortunately for Marbury, there were only two days left after the Senate confirmation before Thomas Jefferson was inaugurated, so a handful of the appointments were never delivered. James Madison—yeah, that James Madison of Federalist Papers fame—was the brand-new Secretary of State, and he refused to deliver Marbury his commission. So Marbury did what any good American would do: he sued. And so here we are.
There were several issues before the court, but we'll focus on two questions: Does Marbury have a right to his commission? And does the Supreme Court have the authority to order the delivery of the commission? John Marshall was the guy who was Adams's Secretary of State that didn't deliver Marbury's commission in the first place, and now he has a new job—he's Chief Justice of the Supreme Court—and he finds himself in a really tough spot in this case. For one thing: conflict of interest, anybody? But if he rules in favor of Marbury, which he'd like to do, he knows that Madison and Jefferson are just going to straight up ignore the Court's ruling, which would be not only super embarrassing for the Supreme Court but will put on full display the weakness of the court and how they can't enforce their rulings. So that's no good. On the other hand, he could rule in favor of Madison, but that would mean that the executive branch could just ignore the law. So that's also not good. Remember that whole limited government idea?
So Marshall comes up with a GOAT finesse in Supreme Court history. The Court held that Marbury was entitled to his commission—wait for it—but the Court couldn't grant it because part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional. Um, what? Long story short, the Judiciary Act was the law that gave the Supreme Court jurisdiction in this lawsuit. The Court ruled that the Judiciary Act unconstitutionally expanded the Court's original jurisdiction, and since that part of the law was unconstitutional, the court was unable to compel Madison to deliver Marbury's commission.
I know what you're thinking: So what? This is the most important case in US history? Well, this was the first time the Supreme Court struck down a congressional law. The Constitution didn't actually give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review. Hamilton wrote about it in Federalist Number 78, but the lasting impact of this case is that the court gave itself the power of judicial review. It looked like John Marshall was in a no-win situation, but not only does he avoid taking a huge L, he ends up dramatically expanding the power of the court for all time.
In the opinion of the court, Marshall wrote, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." The reasoning in this case is based on the Supremacy Clause: The Constitution is superior to federal laws. So if Congress passes a law that is contrary to the Constitution, it's the Supreme Court's job to uphold the Constitution by striking down the unconstitutional law. I've noticed that this is a tricky one to remember. Usually, we think of supremacy as federal over state, but it's also that the Constitution is above legislation.
So that's the story of the most important case in Supreme Court history and how the court gave itself the power of judicial review. Until next time, this has been a the money production. Thanks again for watching. Help me out and make sure that you smash that like button. Subscribe if you haven't already, and if you're looking for some great review materials, I made the ultimate review packet just for you, so check it out, and I will see you in the next video.