Marbury v. Madison
- Decided
- February 24, 1803
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 5,996 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that "the Constitution, and not [an] ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply” — Serra v. Lappin (2010)
- holding that it is “the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is” — Sasnett v. Department of Corrections (1995)
- recognizing that “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is” — Forty-Seventh Legislature v. Napolitano (2006)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Opinion of the court.
At the last term on the affidavits then read and filed with the clerk, a rule was granted in this case, requiring the secretary of state to shew cause why a mandamus [*154] should not issue, directing him to deliver to William Marbury his commission as a justice of the peace for the county of Washington in the district of Columbia.
No cause has been shewn, and the present motion is for a mandamus. The peculiar delicacy of this case, the novelty of some of its circumstances, and the real difficulty attending the points which occur in it, require a complete exposition of the principles, on which the opinion to be given by the court, is founded.
Cite this
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.