Why marbury matters

Marbury sued, demanding that the Supreme Court force Madison to comply. In Marbury v. Madison , the Court was asked to answer three questions. Did Marbury have a right to his commission? If he had such a right, and the right was violated, did the law provide a remedy? And if the law provided a remedy, was the proper remedy a direct order from the Supreme Court? Writing for the Court , Marshall answered the first two questions resoundingly in the affirmative.

Marshall also ruled that Marbury was indeed entitled to a legal remedy for his injury. In the election of , the newly organized Democratic-Republican party of Thomas Jefferson defeated the Federalist party of John Adams, creating an atmosphere of political panic for the lame duck Federalists. In the final days of his presidency, Adams appointed a large number of justices of peace for the District of Columbia whose commissions were approved by the Senate, signed by the president, and affixed with the official seal of the government.

The commissions were not delivered, however, and when President Jefferson assumed office March 5, , he ordered James Madison, his Secretary of State, not to deliver them. William Marbury, one of the appointees, then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus , or legal order, compelling Madison to show cause why he should not receive his commission. In resolving the case, Chief Justice Marshall answered three questions. First, did Marbury have a right to the writ for which he petitioned?

Second, did the laws of the United States allow the courts to grant Marbury such a writ? Third, if they did, could the Supreme Court issue such a writ? With regard to the first question, Marshall ruled that Marbury had been properly appointed in accordance with procedures established by law, and that he therefore had a right to the writ.

Secondly, because Marbury had a legal right to his commission, the law must afford him a remedy. The Chief Justice went on to say that it was the particular responsibility of the courts to protect the rights of individuals -- even against the president of the United States. Freedom of religion is protected by the First Amendment of the U. Constitution, which prohibits laws establishing a national religion or impeding the free exercise of religion for its citizens. Loving v.

Virginia was a Supreme Court case that struck down state laws banning interracial marriage in the United States. The plaintiffs in the case were Richard and Mildred Loving, a white man and Black woman whose marriage was deemed illegal according to Virginia state law.

Even before the U. Constitution was created, its framers understood that it would have to be amended to confront future challenges and adapt and grow alongside the new nation. In creating the amendment process for what would become the permanent U. Constitution, the framers Live TV. This Day In History. History Vault. Recommended for you. James Madison. Dolley Madison. Hidden History: Madison Square Park. McCulloch v. Maryland On March 6, , the U.

James Madison James Madison was a founding father of the United States and the fourth American president, serving in office from to Board of Education Brown v.

Ferguson Plessy v. Wade Roe v. Loving V. Virginia Loving v. The Constitutional Amendments Even before the U.