Marbury v. Madison (1803)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
William Marbury asked the Supreme Court to order Secretary of State James Madison to deliver Marbury’s judicial commission. Chief Justice John Marshall held that Marbury had a right to the commission, but the statute giving the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue the writ went beyond Article III. Because that part of the statute conflicted with the Constitution, it was void.

3) Why It Mattered
This case cemented judicial review: federal courts have the duty and power to refuse to enforce laws that violate the Constitution. It defined the Court’s role as the final expositor of what the law is.

4) What It Provided or Took Away

• Provided: A clear statement that courts can invalidate unconstitutional laws and must follow the Constitution first.
• Took Away: Any idea that Congress can expand the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what Article III allows.

5) Overreach or Proper Role?
Bold, but within the Court’s job description. Marshall rooted the ruling in constitutional text and structure (Article III supremacy and the judicial oath). Most scholars view it as the Court doing exactly what it’s supposed to do—say what the law is when a statute and the Constitution conflict.

6) Plain-English Impact Today
If a law clashes with the Constitution, the Constitution wins. That’s why modern rights cases—free speech, due process, gun rights, searches, elections—are all litigated with courts checking statutes and government actions against the Constitution.

Fast Facts

• Court: U.S. Supreme Court
• Author: Chief Justice John Marshall
• Argued/Decided: 1803
• Key Clauses: Article III (jurisdiction), Supremacy of the Constitution

• Judicial Review
• Separation of Powers
• Foundational
• Early Republic