5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
In December 1801, William Marbury, Dennis Ramsay, Robert Townsend Hooe, and William Harper petitioned the Supreme Court for a rule requiring Secretary of State James Madison to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue commanding delivery of their commissions as justices of the peace in the District of Columbia.1 The applicants had been nominated by outgoing President John Adams.2 The Senate had advised and consented to the appointments.3 Commissions in due form were signed by the President with the seal of the United States affixed by the Secretary of State.4
During the proceedings the Court heard testimony from Department of State clerks Jacob Wagner and Daniel Brent, who described the preparation and handling of the commissions.5 Wagner recalled that two commissions had been signed but could not confirm whether those of the applicants were recorded.6 Brent believed Marbury's and Hooe's commissions were made out. Ramsay's was omitted by mistake. None of the Adams-signed commissions for District justices were recorded.7 Attorney General Levi Lincoln, who had acted as Secretary of State, testified that he had seen signed and sealed commissions but did not know whether any for the applicants were ever sent out.8
James Marshall's affidavit stated that on March 4, 1801, he received and later returned several commissions from the Secretary of State's office, including those for Hooe and Harper.9 The applicants also submitted the affidavit of Hazen Kimball confirming that commissions for Marbury and Hooe were in the office on March 3, 1801.10 Madison did not appear or show cause after the rule was served. The motion for the writ itself was heard in the February 1803 term.11
Whether the applicant has a right to the commission he demands?12
When the President has signed a commission for an office not held at his will, the appointment is complete once it has been sealed by the Secretary of State. This vests legal rights in the appointee that cannot be revoked by the Executive.13
Yes. The rule applies directly because the established facts demonstrate that President Adams signed the commissions. The Secretary of State affixed the seal. The office of justice of the peace was created for a five-year term independent of the Executive's will under the February 1801 act.14
The applicant has a right to the commission.15
Whether if he has a right and that right has been violated the laws of his country afford him a remedy?16
Where there is a legal right, there is a legal remedy.17 When the legislature imposes duties on an officer the performance of which affects individual rights, the officer is amenable to the law for his conduct. The injured party may resort to the courts for relief, as the act is not merely political.18
Yes. The established facts show that Marbury's commission was signed and sealed. This created a vested legal right to the office for five years. The withholding of the commission by the Secretary of State constitutes a violation of that right. It occurred in the performance of a ministerial duty imposed by law rather than a political act within executive discretion.19
The laws afford him a remedy.20
Whether if the laws afford a remedy it is a mandamus issuing from this court?21
The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction only in cases affecting ambassadors and where a state is a party. Congress cannot expand that jurisdiction by statute. A provision authorizing the Court to issue mandamus in original actions is unconstitutional and void.22
No. The established facts present an original action seeking a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court to compel a public officer to deliver a commission. This exceeds the original jurisdiction granted by the Constitution. The Judiciary Act of 1789 purports to authorize such writs to officers of the United States.23 Yet the Constitution limits original jurisdiction to cases affecting ambassadors and states. The statutory grant therefore cannot be exercised.24
It is not a mandamus issuing from this court.25