Marbury v. Madison
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 11, 1803 Decided February 24, 1803
Full case name: William Marbury v. James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States Citations: 5 U.S. 137; 1 Cranch 137; 2 L. Ed. 60; 1803 U.S. LEXIS 352 Prior history: Original action filed in U.S. Supreme Court; order to show cause why writ of mandamus should not issue, December, 1801 Subsequent history: None
Holding
Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the Federal courts to interpret what the Constitution permits.
Court membership
Chief Justice: John Marshall Associate Justices: William Cushing, William Paterson, Samuel Chase, Bushrod Washington, Alfred Moore
Case opinions
Majority by: Marshall Joined by: Paterson, Chase, Washington Cushing and Moore took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. arts. I, III; Judiciary Act of 1789 § 13

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) is a landmark case in United States law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States, under Article Three of the United States Constitution. Image File history File links Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court. ... Federal courts Supreme Court Circuit Courts of Appeal District Courts Elections Presidential elections Midterm elections Political Parties Democratic Republican Third parties State & Local government Governors Legislatures (List) State Courts Local Government Other countries Atlas  US Government Portal      The Supreme Court of the United States (sometimes colloquially referred to by the... For other persons named John Marshall, see John Marshall (disambiguation). ... William Cushing (March 1, 1732–September 13, 1810) was an early associate justice of the United States Supreme Court, from its inception to his death. ... William Paterson William Paterson (December 24, 1745–September 9, 1806) was a New Jersey statesman, a signer of the United States Constitution, and an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. ... This article or section does not cite any references or sources. ... External link Biography from the OYEZ Project Categories: People stubs | 1762 births | 1829 deaths | U.S. Supreme Court justices ... Alfred Moore (May 21, 1755 - 1810) was a distinguished North Carolina judge and eventually a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. ... Wikisource has original text related to this article: Article One of the United States Constitution Article One of the United States Constitution describes the powers of the legislative branch of the United States government, known as Congress, which includes the House of Representatives and the Senate. ... Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the federal government. ... The first page of the Judiciary Act of 1789 The United States Judiciary Act of 1789 (1 Stat. ... 1803 was a common year starting on Saturday (see link for calendar). ... A landmark decision is the outcome of a legal case (often thus referred to as a landmark case) that establishes a precedent that either substantially changes the interpretation of the law or that simply establishes new case law on a particular issue. ... For other uses, see Law (disambiguation). ... Judicial review is the power of a court to review the actions of public sector bodies in terms of their lawfulness, or to review the constitutionality of a statute or treaty, or to review an administrative regulation for consistency with either a statute, a treaty, or the Constitution itself. ... Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the federal government. ...

This case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia by President John Adams shortly before leaving office, but whose commission was not delivered as required by John Marshall, Adams' Secretary of State. When Thomas Jefferson assumed office, he ordered the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to withhold Marbury's and several other men's commissions. Being unable to assume the appointed offices without the commission documents, Marbury and three others petitioned the Court to force Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury. The Supreme Court denied Marbury's petition, holding that the statute upon which he based his claim was unconstitutional. Federal courts Supreme Court Circuit Courts of Appeal District Courts Elections Presidential elections Midterm elections Political Parties Democratic Republican Third parties State & Local government Governors Legislatures (List) State Courts Local Government Other countries Atlas  US Government Portal      The Supreme Court of the United States (sometimes colloquially referred to by the... Holding Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. ... A justice of the peace (JP) is a puisne judicial officer appointed by means of a commission to keep the peace. ... For other uses, see Washington, D.C. (disambiguation). ... For other persons named John Adams, see John Adams (disambiguation). ... For other persons named John Marshall, see John Marshall (disambiguation). ... In several countries, Secretary of State is a senior government position. ... Thomas Jefferson (13 April 1743 N.S.–4 July 1826) was the third President of the United States (1801–09), the principal author of the Declaration of Independence (1776), and one of the most influential Founding Fathers for his promotion of the ideals of Republicanism in the United States. ... “Madison” redirects here. ... Letters Patent by Queen Victoria creating the office of Governor-General of Australia Letters patent are a type of legal instrument in the form of an open letter issued by a monarch or government granting an office, a right, monopoly, title, or status to someone or some entity such as...

Background of the case

William Marbury

In the Presidential election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams, becoming the third U.S. President. Although the election was decided on February 17, 1801, Jefferson did not take office until March 4, 1801. Until that time, Adams and the Federalist-controlled U.S. Congress were still in power.^{[citation needed]} Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801. This Act modified the famous Judiciary Act of 1789 by establishing 10 new District Courts, expanding the number of Circuit Courts from 3 to 6, adding additional judges to each Circuit, giving the President the authority to appoint Federal judges and justices of the peace, and reducing the number of Supreme Court justices from six to five, effective upon the next vacancy in the Court.^[1][2] Image File history File links Marbury. ... Image File history File links Marbury. ... In the United States presidential election of 1800, sometimes referred to as the “Revolution of 1800”, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams. ... Thomas Jefferson (13 April 1743 N.S.–4 July 1826) was the third President of the United States (1801–09), the principal author of the Declaration of Independence (1776), and one of the most influential Founding Fathers for his promotion of the ideals of Republicanism in the United States. ... For other persons named John Adams, see John Adams (disambiguation). ... Federal courts Supreme Court Circuit Courts of Appeal District Courts Elections Presidential elections Midterm elections Political Parties Democratic Republican Third parties State & Local government Governors Legislatures (List) State Courts Local Government Other countries Atlas  US Government Portal      For other uses, see President of the United States (disambiguation). ... is the 48th day of the year in the Gregorian calendar. ... The Union Jack, flag of the newly formed United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. ... is the 63rd day of the year (64th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... The Union Jack, flag of the newly formed United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. ... ... Congress in Joint Session. ... ... The first page of the Judiciary Act of 1789 The United States Judiciary Act of 1789 (1 Stat. ... The United States district courts are the general trial courts of the United States federal court system. ... The United States courts of appeals (or circuit courts) are the mid-level appellate courts of the United States federal court system. ...

On March 2, two days before his term was to end, Adams, in an attempt to stymie the incoming Republican party (Democratic-Republican Party) controlled Congress and Administration, appointed sixteen Federalist circuit judges and forty-two Federalist justices of the peace to offices created by the Judiciary Act of 1801. These appointees, the infamous "Midnight Judges", were all located in the Washington and Alexandria area.^{[citation needed]} One of these appointees was William Marbury, a native of Maryland and a prosperous financier. An ardent Federalist, Marbury was active in Maryland politics and a vigorous supporter of the Adams' presidency.^{[citation needed]} He had been appointed to the position of justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. The term for a justice of the peace was five years, and they were "authorized to hold courts and cognizance of personal demands of the value of 20 dollars".^[3] The Democratic-Republican Party, also known as the Republican Party , was founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792. ... The Midnight Judges were the last-minute appointments of judges made by United States President John Adams to the Judicial Branch just before the end of his presidental term in 1801. ... Location in Virginia Coordinates: , Country State Founded 1718 Government  - Mayor William D. Euille Area  - City  15. ... Holding Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. ... A justice of the peace (JP) is a puisne judicial officer appointed by means of a commission to keep the peace. ... For other uses, see Washington, D.C. (disambiguation). ...

On the following day, the appointments were approved en masse by the Senate; however, to go into effect, the commissions had to be delivered to those appointed. This task fell to John Marshall, who, even though recently appointed Chief Justice of the United States, continued as the acting Secretary of State at President Adams' personal request.^{[citation needed]} Type Upper House President of the Senate Richard B. Cheney, R since January 20, 2001 President pro tempore Robert C. Byrd, D since January 4, 2007 Members 100 Political groups Democratic Party Republican Party Last elections November 7, 2006 Meeting place Senate Chamber United States Capitol Washington, DC United States... For other persons named John Marshall, see John Marshall (disambiguation). ... Federal courts Supreme Court Circuit Courts of Appeal District Courts Elections Presidential elections Midterm elections Political Parties Democratic Republican Third parties State & Local government Governors Legislatures (List) State Courts Local Government Other countries Atlas  Politics Portal      The Chief Justice of the United States is the head of the judicial branch... Seal of the United States Department of State. ...

While a majority of the commissions were delivered, it proved impossible for all of them to be delivered before Adams' term as president expired. As these appointments were routine in nature, Marshall assumed the new Secretary of State James Madison would see they were delivered, since "they had been properly submitted and approved, and were, therefore, legally valid appointments."^[4] On March 4, 1801, Thomas Jefferson was sworn in as President. As soon as he was able, President Jefferson ordered Levi Lincoln, who was the new administration's Attorney General and acting Secretary of State until the arrival of James Madison, not to deliver the remaining appointments. Without the commissions, the appointees were unable to assume the offices and duties to which they had been appointed. In Jefferson's opinion, the undelivered commissions, not having been delivered on time, were void.^[5] “Madison” redirects here. ... is the 63rd day of the year (64th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... The Union Jack, flag of the newly formed United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. ... Thomas Jefferson (13 April 1743 N.S.–4 July 1826) was the third President of the United States (1801–09), the principal author of the Declaration of Independence (1776), and one of the most influential Founding Fathers for his promotion of the ideals of Republicanism in the United States. ... Levi Lincoln (May 15, 1749–April 14, 1820) was an American revolutionary and statesman who served as a Minuteman at the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War, a state legislator in Massachusetts, a participant in Massachusetts state constitutional convention, Governor of Massachusetts, Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts, a U.S... “Madison” redirects here. ...

Secretary of State James Madison was ordered by Jefferson to withhold the commissions.

The newly sworn-in Republican congress immediately set about voiding the Judiciary Act of 1801 with their own Judiciary Act of 1802 which reversed the act of 1801 so that the Judicial branch once again operated under the dictates of the original Judiciary Act of 1789. In addition, it replaced the Court's two annual sessions with one session to begin on the first Monday in February, and "canceled the Supreme Court term scheduled for June of that year [1802] ... seeking to delay a ruling on the constitutionality of the repeal act until months after the new judicial system was in operation."^[6] Image File history File links Gilbert Stuart American, 1755 - 1828 James Madison, c. ... Image File history File links Gilbert Stuart American, 1755 - 1828 James Madison, c. ... The United States Secretary of State is the head of the United States Department of State, concerned with foreign affairs. ... “Madison” redirects here. ... Thomas Jefferson (13 April 1743 N.S.–4 July 1826) was the third President of the United States (1801–09), the principal author of the Declaration of Independence (1776), and one of the most influential Founding Fathers for his promotion of the ideals of Republicanism in the United States. ... ... The United States Judiciary Act of 1802 (2 Stat. ... The first page of the Judiciary Act of 1789 The United States Judiciary Act of 1789 (1 Stat. ...

Status of the judicial power before Marbury

The power of judicial review is often thought to have been created in Marbury but the general idea has ancient roots. The idea that courts could nullify statutes probably has its roots in Chief Justice Edward Coke's 1610 opinion in Dr. Bonham’s Case, 8 Co. Rep. 107a. That decision arose under a statute of Parliament enabling the London College of Physicians to levy fines against anyone who violated their rules. The College accused a doctor of practicing without a license and fined him accordingly. Coke found that their statutory powers violated "common right or reason" because "no person should be a judge in his own case."^[7] Sir Edward Coke Sir Edward Coke (pronounced cook) (1 February 1552 – 3 September 1634), was an early English colonial entrepreneur and jurist whose writings on the English common law were the definitive legal texts for some 300 years. ... A legal case decided in 1610 by Sir Edward Coke, chief justice of Englands Court of Common Pleas, in which he asserted the supremacy of the common law in England. ...

Sir Edward Coke

The U.S. Supreme Court has clarified that Bonham's Case did not actually make common law supreme over statutory law in England: This image has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder, its copyright has expired, or it is ineligible for copyright. ... This image has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder, its copyright has expired, or it is ineligible for copyright. ...

[N]otwithstanding what was attributed to Lord COKE in Bonham's Case, 8 Reporter, 115, 118a, the omnipotence of parliament over the common law was absolute, even against common right and reason. The actual and practical security for English liberty against legislative tyranny was the power of a free public opinion represented by the commons.^[8]

The idea that courts could declare statutes void waxed and then waned in England, but it was well known in the American colonies and in the bars of young states, where Coke's books were very influential. The doctrine was specifically enshrined in some state constitutions, and by 1803 it had been employed in both State and Federal courts in actions dealing with state statutes, but only insofar as the statutes conflicted with the language of state constitutions.^[9][10]

Some legal scholars argue that the legal basis and concept of judicial review predate the case, and that Marbury merely formalized it. For example, Saikrishna Prakash and John Yoo point out, with respect to the ratification of the Constitution, that "no scholar to date has identified even one participant in the ratification fight who argued that the Constitution did not authorize judicial review of Federal statutes. This silence in the face of the numerous comments on the other side is revealing."^[11] John Choon Yoo (born 1967), is a professor of Law at the Boalt Hall School of Law, the University of California, Berkeley. ...

However, it is important to note that nothing in the text of the Constitution explicitly authorized the power of judicial review, despite persistent fears voiced by Anti-federalists over the power of the new Federal court system.

The concept was also laid out by Hamilton in Federalist No. 78: Alexander Hamilton, author of Federalist No. ...

Relevant law

U.S. Const. art. III, Section 2 Clause 2

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned [within the judicial power of the United States], the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Judiciary Act of 1789, § 13

"The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states, in the cases herein after provided for; and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts . . . and writs of mandamus . . . to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States." A writ of mandamus or simply mandamus, which means we order in Latin, is the name of one of the prerogative writs and is a court order directing someone, most frequently a government official, to perform a specified act. ...

The issue

There are three ways a case can be heard in the Supreme Court: (1) filing directly in the Supreme Court; (2) filing in a lower federal court, such as a district court, and appealing all the way up to the Supreme Court; (3) filing in a state court, appealing all the way up through the state's highest courts, and then appealing to the Supreme Court on an issue of federal law. The first is an exercise of the Court's original jurisdiction; the second and third are exercises of the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction.^{[citation needed]} District courts are a category of courts which exists in several nations. ... This does not cite any references or sources. ... The appellate jurisdiction refers to matters which a court can hear after being ruled on by another court. ...

Because Marbury filed his petition for the writ of mandamus directly in the Supreme Court, the Court needed to be able to exercise original jurisdiction over the case in order to have the power to hear it. A writ of mandamus or simply mandamus, which means we order in Latin, is the name of one of the prerogative writs and is a court order directing someone to perform a specified act. ...

Marbury's argument is that in the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over petitions for writs of mandamus. This raises several issues that the Supreme Court had to address:

• Does Article III of the Constitution create a "floor" for original jurisdiction, which Congress can add to, or does it create an exhaustive list that Congress can't modify at all?
• If Article III's original jurisdiction is an exhaustive list, but Congress tries to modify it anyway, who wins that conflict, Congress or the Constitution? And, more importantly, who is supposed to decide who wins? In his answer to this last question, the Supreme Court formalizes the notion of judicial review.

In short, the constitutional issue on which Marbury v. Madison was decided was whether Congress could expand the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Judicial review is the power of a court to review the actions of public sector bodies in terms of their constitutionality. ...

The decision

An engraving of Justice Marshall made by Charles-Balthazar-Julien Fevret de Saint-Mémin in 1808.

The Court rendered a unanimous (4-0) decision, throwing out the case, on February 24, 1803.^[13] Chief Justice Marshall wrote the opinion of the court. Marshall presented the case as raising three distinct questions: Image File history File links Marshall-john-engraving-LOC-1808. ... Image File history File links Marshall-john-engraving-LOC-1808. ... is the 55th day of the year in the Gregorian calendar. ... 1803 was a common year starting on Saturday (see link for calendar). ...

• Did Marbury have a right to the commission?
• Do the laws of the country give Marbury a legal remedy?
• Is asking the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus the correct legal remedy?

Marshall quickly answered the first two questions affirmatively. He found that the failure to deliver the commission was "violative of a vested legal right." In law, a Judicial remedy is the means by which a court, usually in the exercise of civil law jurisdiction, enforces a right, imposes a penalty, or makes some other court order. ... A writ of mandamus or simply mandamus, which means we order in Latin, is the name of one of the prerogative writs and is a court order directing someone to perform a specified act. ...

In deciding whether Marbury had a remedy, Marshall stated: "The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right." One of the key legal principles on which Marbury relies is the notion that for every violation of a vested legal right, there must be a legal remedy. Marshall next described two distinct types of Executive actions: political actions, where the official can exercise discretion, and purely ministerial functions, where the official is legally required to do something. Marshall found that delivering the appointment to Marbury was a purely ministerial function required by law, and therefore the law provided him a remedy.

A federal court has a "special obligation to 'satisfy itself not only of its own jurisdiction, but also that of the lower courts in a cause under review.'"^[14] If a court does not have the power to hear a case, it will not issue dicta. Consequently, with exceptions not applicable here, a federal court must decide whether it has jurisdiction before discussing the merits of the case.^[15] Chief Justice Marshall, however, did not address jurisdictional issues until addressing the first two questions presented above. Because of the canon of constitutional avoidance (i.e., where a statute can fairly be interpreted so as to avoid a constitutional issue, it should be so interpreted), courts generally deal with the constitutional issues only if necessary. In this case, the jurisdictional issue was a constitutional one.^[16] In law, the term dicta is used to refer to a judges statement of legal opinion that is not directly relevant to the case being heard. ...

In analyzing the third question, Marshall first examined the Judiciary Act of 1789 and determined that the Act purported to give the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over writs of mandamus. Marshall then looked to Article III of the Constitution, which defines the Supreme Court's original and appellate jurisdictions (see Relevant Law above). Marbury had argued that the Constitution was only intended to set a floor for original jurisdiction that Congress could add to. Marshall disagreed and held that Congress does not have the power to modify the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. Consequently, Marshall found that the Constitution and the Judiciary Act conflict. The first page of the Judiciary Act of 1789 The United States Judiciary Act of 1789 (1 Stat. ... Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the federal government. ...

This conflict raised the important question of what happens when an Act of Congress conflicts with the Constitution. Marshall answered that Acts of Congress that conflict with the Constitution are not law and the Courts are bound instead to follow the Constitution, affirming the principle of judicial review. In support of this position Marshall looked to the nature of the written Constitution—there would be no point of having a written Constitution if the courts could just ignore it. "To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"^[17] Marshall also argued that the very nature of the judicial function requires courts to make this determination. Since it is a court's duty to decide cases, courts have to be able to decide what law applies to each case. Therefore, if two laws conflict with each other, a court must decide which law applies.^[18] Finally, Marshall pointed to the judge's oath requiring them to uphold the Constitution, and to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which lists the "Constitution" before the "laws of the United States." Part of the core of this reasoning is found in the following statements from the decision: Judicial review is the power of a court to review the actions of public sector bodies in terms of their constitutionality. ... Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause: The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as the supreme law of the land. ...

"In denying his request, the Court held that it lacked jurisdiction because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act passed by Congress in 1789, which authorized the Court to issue such a writ, was unconstitutional and thus invalid."^[20] Marbury never became a Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia.^[21]

Criticisms

A minority of legal scholars have raised questions about the logic Marshall used in determining the Judiciary Act unconstitutional, and hence the legitimacy of judicial review. They reason that Marshall selectively quoted the Judiciary Act, interpreting it to grant the Supreme Court the power to hear writs of mandamus on original jurisdiction.^[22] These scholars argue that there is little connection between the notion of original jurisdiction and the Supreme Court, and note that the Act seems to affirm the Court's power to exercise only appellate jurisdiction.^[23] Furthermore, that the Supreme Court should have been able to issue the writ on original jurisdiction based on the fact that Article III of the Constitution granted it the right to review on original jurisdiction "all cases affecting . . . public ministers and consuls," and that James Madison, Secretary of State at the time and defendant of the suit, should have fallen into that category of a "public minister [or] consul."^[24]

Questions have also frequently been raised about the logic of Marshall's argument for judicial review, for example by Alexander Bickel in his book The Least Dangerous Branch. Bickel argues that Marshall's argument implies an unrealistically mechanical view of jurisprudence, one which suggests that the Court has an absolute duty to strike down every law it finds violative of the Constitution. Under Marshall's conception of the judicial process in Marbury, judges themselves have no independent agency and can never take into account the consequences of their actions when deciding cases—a notion that has been attacked by Richard Posner. More generally, Marshall's argument for the notion of a judicial obligation to strike down laws "repugnant to the constitution" presupposes some sort of underlying meaning to the text of the U.S. Constitution which judges can divine, a notion contested by scholars Paul Brest and Duncan Kennedy, among others, as well as Posner.^{[citation needed]} Alexander Mordecai Bickel (December 17, 1924 – November 8, 1974) was a law professor and expert on the United States Constitution. ... Richard Allen Posner (born January 11, 1939, in New York City) is currently a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. ... Duncan Kennedy (*1942 in Washington, D.C.) is the Carter Professor of General Jurisprudence at Harvard Law School. ...

Because the Constitution lacks a clear statement authorizing the Federal courts to nullify the acts of coequal branches, critics contend that the argument for judicial review must rely on a significant gloss on the Constitution's terms. Despite such criticisms of Marbury v. Madison, judicial review has been accepted in the American legal community.^{[citation needed]}

See also

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 5

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 5: 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 1 (1801) 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 44 (1801) 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 103 (1801) 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 110 (1801) 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 117 (1801...

Notes and references

... The Case of Calder v. ... Oral arguments are verbal presentations to a judge or appellate court by a lawyer (or the party when representing themselves) of the legal reasons why they should prevail. ...

Further reading

• Marbury v. Madison.
• Smith, Jean Edward (1996). John Marshall: Definer Of A Nation. Owl Books. ISBN 0-8050-5510-X. 
• Smith, Jean Edward (1989). The Constitution And American Foreign Policy. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company. ISBN 0-3144-2317-6. 
• Nelson, William E. (2000). Marbury v. Madison: The Origins and Legacy of Judicial Review. University Press of Kansas. ISBN 0-7006-1062-6.  (One introduction to the case)
• Clinton, Robert Lowry (1991). Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review. University Press of Kansas. ISBN 0-7006-0517-7.  (Claims that it is a mistake to read the case as claiming a judicial power to tell the President or Congress what they can or cannot do under the Constitution.)
• Irons, Peter (1999). A People's History of the Supreme Court. Penguin Books, pp 104-107. ISBN 0-14-029201-2. 
• Newmyer, R. Kent (2001). John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court. Louisiana State University Press. ISBN 0-8071-3249-7. 

Jean Edward Smith is an accomplished educator and biographer having authored such works as Grant, John Marshall: Definer of a Nation, and Presently he is the John Marshall Professor of Political Science at Marshall University. ... Jean Edward Smith is an accomplished educator and biographer having authored such works as Grant, John Marshall: Definer of a Nation, and Presently he is the John Marshall Professor of Political Science at Marshall University. ...

External links

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Marbury v. Madison

• Marbury v. Madison decision from LII-Cornell Law School
• The 200th Anniversary of Marbury v. Madison: The Reasons We Should Still Care About the Decision, and The Lingering Questions It Left Behind
• The Establishment of Judicial Review
• The 200th Anniversary of Marbury v. Madison: The Supreme Court's First Great Case