The Court That Crowned Itself Umpire: Marbury v Madison (1803)

01st Aug 2026, author: Barrister Nazirul Alam

The case at a glance

Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) (Supreme Court of the United States). Holding: a statute inconsistent with the Constitution is void, and it is the province and duty of the courts to say so — the foundation of constitutional judicial review.

The story

In the final hours of President John Adams’s administration, William Marbury was appointed a justice of the peace — one of the so-called “midnight judges” — but his signed and sealed commission was never delivered. The incoming Jefferson administration ordered the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to withhold it. Marbury applied directly to the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus compelling delivery, relying on a statute purporting to give the Court original jurisdiction to issue such writs.

The question

Did Marbury have a right to his commission; if so, was mandamus the remedy; and could the Supreme Court constitutionally grant it in original jurisdiction?

The decision

Chief Justice John Marshall’s judgment is a masterpiece of strategic reasoning. Yes, Marbury had a right to the commission; yes, the law must afford him a remedy, for the government of the United States is a government of laws and not of men. But the statutory grant of original jurisdiction went beyond what the Constitution allowed — and between an ordinary statute and the Constitution, the Constitution must prevail: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” The Court thus denied Marbury his remedy while claiming for the judiciary a vastly greater power: to strike down legislation repugnant to the Constitution.

Why it still matters

Marbury supplied the logic on which every constitutional court now operates. Its reasoning echoes through Kesavananda Bharati in India and Anwar Hossain Chowdhury in Bangladesh: where a constitution is supreme and written, someone must police the boundary, and that someone is the judiciary. Marshall also left a permanent lesson in judicial statecraft — how a court can lose the battle deliberately in order to win the constitution.

Recent Landmark Cases – International

Westminster and the UK Supreme Court building in London

Eleven Justices, One Prorogation: R (Miller) v The Prime Minister (2019)

The case at a glance R (Miller) v The Prime Minister; Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland [2019] UKSC 41 (UK Supreme Court, unanimous, eleven Justices). Holding: the advice to prorogue Parliament was justiciable and unlawful; the prorogation was void and of no effect. The story In the tensest months of the Brexit process, the [...]

Stack of vintage newspapers with classified advertisements

The Advertisement That Meant What It Said: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893)

The case at a glance Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256 (Court of Appeal). Holding: an advertisement can constitute a unilateral offer to the world, accepted by performance of its conditions; the deposit of money demonstrated intention to be bound. The story At the height of a Victorian influenza epidemic, the [...]

Old fashioned glass bottle in dark amber tones

The Snail That Built a Duty of Care: Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

The case at a glance Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (House of Lords). Holding: a manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of its products; foundation of the modern tort of negligence. The story On an August evening in 1928, in the Wellmeadow Café in Paisley, Scotland, Mrs May Donoghue drank [...]