No, Congress did not have that power. The Court explained its decision in three parts. First, Marbury did have a right to his job because all the official steps were finished when the President signed and sealed the papers. Second, when someone's rights are violated, the law should give them a way to fix the problem. But third, and most importantly, Marbury came to the wrong court. A law from Congress said he could start his case at the Supreme Court, but the Constitution itself says the Supreme Court can't handle cases like this from the very beginning. When a regular law and the Constitution disagree, the Constitution always wins. The Court's main job is to follow the Constitution, so it had to ignore the bad law and rule that it couldn't help Marbury, even though he was right.

Yes, the Supreme Court can review laws and cancel them if they go against the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the courts get to say what the law means. If a regular law and the Constitution disagree on something, the court has to choose the Constitution. The law that gave the Supreme Court the power to order Madison was unconstitutional because the Constitution itself says what the Supreme Court can and can't do. The Constitution is more important than regular laws, and the courts must protect the Constitution, even over laws passed by Congress. That's a key part of the courts' job. So, even though Marbury deserves his papers, the Supreme Court can't order Madison to deliver them because that part of the law is unconstitutional.

Yes, the Supreme Court can review laws and cancel them if they go against the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and we get to say what the law means. If a regular law and the Constitution disagree on something, we have to choose the Constitution. The law that gave us the power to order Madison was unconstitutional because the Constitution itself says what we can and can't do. The Constitution is more important than regular laws, and we must protect the Constitution, even over laws passed by Congress. That's a key part of our job. So, even though Marbury deserves his papers, we can't order Madison to deliver them because that part of the law is unconstitutional.

—declaring "[i] t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is

Plaintiffs argue Schwarzenegger thereby violated his oath of office, justifying intervention by the judiciary as the supreme interpreter of the scope of constitutional powers despite the separation of powers clause, California Constitution, article III, section 3, which provides: "The powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial. Persons charged with the …

" `The province of the court,'"in contrast," `is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals.'"Ibid

As Chief Justice Marshall observed: "The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection."

"Questions, in their nature political, or which are, by the constitution and laws, submitted to the executive, can never be made in this court."

The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written

I fail to see, however, how the satisfaction of constitutional requirements precludes federal courts in appropriate circumstances from saying precisely "what the law is."

When construing a statute, "[i] t is our duty `to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word'"so as to avoid rendering any part of the statute meaningless surplusage.

"The Congressional power to ordain and establish inferior courts includes the power of investing them with jurisdiction."

Yes, Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional because a legislative act repugnant to the Constitution is void. The Court first determined that Marbury had a vested legal right to his commission because the appointment was complete once it was signed by the President and sealed by the Secretary of State; delivery was not essential. Secondly, the Court held that for every violation of a vested legal right, the law provides a remedy. However, the Court concluded it lacked the authority to issue the requested writ of mandamus. While the Judiciary Act of 1789 granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue such writs, Article III of the Constitution specifically enumerates the Court's original jurisdiction, and this case does not fall within that list. The Court reasoned that Congress cannot expand the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. Because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, any conflicting statute is void. Therefore, it is 'emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,' which includes refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws.

Yes, the Supreme Court has the authority to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress and to invalidate laws found to be in conflict with the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it is the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. If a law conflicts with the Constitution, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case and follow the Constitution. The provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that granted the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus in cases of original jurisdiction is unconstitutional because it attempts to expand the Court's original jurisdiction beyond what is specified in Article III of the Constitution. The Constitution is superior to any ordinary legislative act, and the judicial branch must uphold the Constitution over laws that are repugnant to it. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. Therefore, although Marbury has a legal right to his commission, the Supreme Court does not have the constitutional authority to issue the mandamus compelling its delivery.

Marbury v. Madison

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot