February 24, 1803

Marbury v. Madison

The Supreme Court decides Marbury v. Madison

Marbury was told he had a right, had suffered a legal wrong, and had asked for the proper remedy — and still lost. The Court enlarged its authority by limiting its own jurisdiction.

24 February 1803: the opinion

On 24 February 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall delivered the Court's opinion in William Marbury's petition, which sought a writ compelling Secretary of State James Madison to deliver his commission as a District of Columbia justice of the peace. Marbury was one of 42 nominees confirmed in March 1801; four commissions, including his, had never been delivered.

Marshall ruled on the legal effect of a commission that he himself had sealed while still serving as secretary of state.

Right, wrong, and no remedy

The Court held that Adams's signature and the affixing of the seal had completed the appointment, so Marbury possessed a legal right and Madison's withholding was unlawful. Then it denied him relief.

Its reason was jurisdictional: Article III did not give the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue the requested writ. Marshall treated the portion of Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that purported to authorize such relief as contrary to Article III and therefore void.

What was and wasn't established

That was the first clear Supreme Court invalidation of an act of Congress as unconstitutional — but the case did not invent constitutional review from nothing, since state and federal courts had engaged in forms of it before 1803. Nor did the Court strike down all of Section 13; it rejected the provision insofar as it purported to enlarge the Court's original jurisdiction.

Marbury himself got nothing. He received no writ and never obtained the office.

Sources

Researched 23 Aug 2026 8 sources 3 audit passes

How this was checked

Researched from the web into a fact sheet, rewritten from that sheet, then audited against it by a different model. How the pipeline works →

What the sources leave uncertain

The decision date and holding are secure. The larger claim that Marbury 'created' judicial review requires qualification: state and federal courts had engaged in forms of constitutional review before 1803.
The conventional description of a unanimous Court means no participating justice dissented; not all six sitting justices were present for the case.