#18 · 2026-08-24 · Case
Marbury v. Madison
The Court recognized the appointee's right to his commission but held it lacked original jurisdiction to issue the requested mandamus under the unconstitutional statutory enlargement. The opinion is a foundational articulation of judicial review of federal legislation.
Rule to remember
Marbury v. Madison held that the Supreme Court could not exercise original jurisdiction beyond Article III's grant and articulated the judiciary's duty to disregard a conflicting federal statute.
Key elements and checks
- A signed and sealed commission was withheld after a change in administration.
- Mandamus was sought in the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction.
- The Court rejected the statutory jurisdictional enlargement and explained judicial review.
In the source’s words
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
The decision is not a holding that the Court may issue any requested writ against an executive official; its jurisdictional limit prevented the requested relief.