courts, created a great number of jobs that needed to be filled. This task fell to Adams.

When the Supreme Court ruled on this case, it decided that it had no jurisdiction over Marbury's commission. While this ruling seemed to diminish its power, the decision in fact established the principle of judicial review—the idea that the Supreme Court had the power to review laws to determine their constitutionality. Therefore, the case, in effect, expanded the powers of the Supreme Court.

The main issues that led to the case of Marbury v. Madison were the distrust between the two political parties at the end of John Adams’ presidency and Adams’ desire to perpetuate the power of his party even after it lost the presidency.  These political issues morphed into a legal issue over the legality of James Madison’s actions as part of the new Jefferson Administration.

The election of 1800 was the first one in which one political party lost the presidency to the other party.  As such, it was a very important moment in American history.  John Adams and the Federalists had lost the election to Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans.  In the last days of Federalist control, Congress passed a law expanding the number of federal judgeships, which allowed Adams to fill those positions before the Federalists left power.  Adams and the Federalists believed the Democratic-Republicans were very bad for the country and they felt that it was important for them to get a lot of judges into office to help perpetuate Federalist powers.

When William Marbury tried to take his seat as one of the new judges, he was prevented by the Democratic-Republicans.  He sued them, claiming that he had a right to his job.  This lawsuit became the famous Supreme Court case in which Chief Justice John Marshall declared that the Supreme Court had the power of judicial review.

Madison's main argument was that, because he hadn't delivered notice of Marbury's commission in time, his appointment wasn't valid. That being the case, the new President, Thomas Jefferson, could safely revoke Marbury's commission.

Furthermore, it's almost certain that Madison's legal counsel would've raised the issue of judicial interference in executive decisions. Before Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court had very limited powers; it certainly couldn't overturn decisions made by the executive.

But the Court, in a landmark case, rejected both of Madison's arguments while at the same time refusing to grant Marbury his sought-after judicial commission. They did so by invalidating an act of Congress that had given it the authority to adjudicate in such cases. In doing so, ironically, the Supreme Court gave to itself the much greater power of judicial review, the power to strike down laws as unconstitutional.

The case arose out of the fierce political rivalry between the outgoing Federalist Administration and its Democratic-Republican opponents. Thomas Jefferson, the Democratic-Republican candidate for President, had defeated the incumbent John Adams in the 1800 election. Yet as Inauguration Day would not take place until March of the following year, Adams remained as President, with all the powers that the role entailed.

One of the most important of those powers was that of judicial appointment. Adams was worried that the incoming administration would undo his entire political program. So in the dying days of his presidency he made a number of appointments to the Federal bench, hoping to pack the courts with his political supporters in order to stymie any attempts by the next administration to undermine his legacy.

One of the men due to be appointed was William Marbury. Yet he was denied his appointment at the 11th hour by the new Secretary of State, James Madison, who had not delivered his formal commission on time before President Jefferson's inauguration. In court, the government argued that as the commission had not been delivered on time, Marbury was not entitled to take up his new position. For his part, Marbury was aggrieved that he had been denied a judicial role given to him by the duly constituted legal authority, i.e. President Adams.

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court, consisting largely of Federalists such as Chief Justice John Marshall, held that Marbury was not entitled to his appointment, even though Madison's failure to deliver his commission was illegal. The Court's rationale for handing down the decision was purely political. Marshall knew that if the Court ruled in Marbury's favor it would generate a bitter conflict with the Jefferson Administration, which might well result in the Court's having its wings clipped by the President and his supporters, who now had a majority in Congress.

More importantly, the Court also invalidated the law that had given it jurisdiction in the Marbury case. Ironically, then, the Supreme Court struck down a law that had given it more power. Yet in doing so, it arrogated to itself yet greater power: the power of judicial review. The Court had given to the Jefferson Administration with one hand and taken with the other. From that day on, the Supreme Court would have the right to strike down laws as unconstitutional.

Let us try to simplify what is really a very poignant moment in the political history of the United States.

The importance of the case

Marbury vs. Madison is the pivotal case which precluded the separation of the Judicial branch from the Legislative and the Executive branches. Moreover, this case is the first one which questioned the extent of the power of the President of the United States, as well as the influence of one branch over another.

As we know, all three branches were created to regulate each other and not one overpowers the other. It was not this way back in 1801, and this created a lot of double-standards and very shadowy situations. Moreover, the role of the "President" was still taking shape. There was nothing to "control" a potentially despotic action from the President, especially if the legislative branch supported him.

However, the drama of 1801 changed all this.

The Historical background

The situation was no different than in a change of government in the XXI century: A President is voted out of the White House and, right before ending his presidency, the outgoing President wants to make some last minute changes.

In this case, the outgoing President was John Adams. Worried about losing slots in the Judiciary branch from his own party, he nominated 42 judges from "his team" sort of at a last minute prior to parting the presidency, so that his party's majority would always out rule the incoming President, Thomas Jefferson.

Marbury was one of those judges appointed almost in a shotgun way (they were deemed "The Midnight Judges") and basically accepted his appointment overnight. However, things were about to change.

The problem

First, the commissions took too long to process and they were still incomplete by the time that Adams officially left. Therefore, Marbury never really received it. He was merely appointed as a judge, not yet commissioned.

Second, with Jefferson already in power, he cut the judges' positions again, from 42 to 30. Madbury was part of the 12-man cut and he simply turned in a grievance in which he asked Madison (the new Secretary of State) to give him what belongs duly to him.

What makes the case interesting is that, rather than simply denying Marbury anything "because it was done before the new President", there was a proper due process conducted in which his concerns were clearly stated, and they were also answered.

"The" three questions

The three basic questions were a) Whether Marbury was qualified for the job he was appointed to do, b) whether the format of the judiciary committee was the proper forum to process the cause and c) whether Madison actually has the right to ask for Marbury's commission back. 

Outcome

The conclusions were: a) Marbury was qualified;  b)  He used the proper forum to address his concern...but:

Marbury was sent to the appellate court because Congress cannot give the Supreme Court any mandate to make Madison do anything.

Therefore, Marbury vs. Madison is the case that may have very well separated the three branches, for the first time, and not in favor of the President, but in favor of the constitutional rights of a citizen.

We know  however that the outcome was meant to appease everyone: Marbury was rich and unlikely to bother appealing-and they knew it. But the government also wins: an additional force comes into play; three branches, all separate, and all equal will set the records straight from this moment on.

The issue was whether or not the court had to approve appointments made in the last days of John Adams presidency, as Marbury and the others claimed.  The court ruled in favor of Madison, and, in so doing, established for itself the principal of judicial review.

Marbury vs. Madison was a Supreme Court case in 1803.  The plaintiffs were William Marbury, William Harper, Robert R. Hooe, Dennis Ramsay.  The defendant was James Madison (who was Secretary of State at the time).  Madison won, and no one voted against him.  The Court determined that Marbury and the others did not have a right to their commission, because they were not confirmed.

"It is, emphatically, the province [within court's power] and duty of the judicial department [the courts] to say what the law is." This dramatic and often quoted statement was made by Chief Justice John Marshall inMarbury v. Madison (1803).- See first link

The case was important in establishing the concept of Supreme Court Judicial Review.  We now view the Constitution as a living document.  Chief Justice John Marshall declared: “A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”   As a result, the Constitution is now interpreted by the Court.