Constitutional Law Outline: Matsumoto
I. The Judicial Function in Constitutional Cases
A. The Nature and Sources of the Supreme Court’s Authority
1. Judicial Review: Art. III never expressly grants the federal courts the power to review the constitutionality of federal of state laws or executive actions however it is firmly established.
a. Marbury v. Madison: Established the authority for the judiciary to review the constitutionality of federal executive and legislative acts.
-Although the Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized original jurisdiction, the Ct. could not constitutionally hear the case because it was beyond the situations enumerated in the Constitution
-Marshall: Conflict of interest, Secretary of State who signed Marbury’s commission and responsible for delivery. Ruling in favor of Marbury would be futile, would be ignored and undermine Ct., however chance to claim power of judicial review
à Brilliance of Marshall’s opinion: 1789 declared unconstitutional actually enlarged judiciary power
1-3a all dicta
1. Is Marbury entitled to commission?
Yes, because signed and sealed
2. Does Marbury have a remedy?
a. Yes, it’s in the nature of a legal right; when a legal right is violated there is a legal remedy.
b. The judiciary can provide remedies against the executive when there is a specific duty to a particular person, and indicidual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, but not when it’s a political matter left to executive discretion.
3. Is Marbury’s mandamus proper remedy?
Yes, writ ordering a government official to commission Marbury
a. Is mandamus the proper writ? Yes, where the executive has a legal duty to act or refrain from acting, the federal judiciary can provide a remedy, including a writ of mandamusb. Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over the case? NO!
1. Marbury argues and the Court agrees: The Judiciary Act of 1789 § 13 says the S.C. has original jurisdiction over these cases, however this interpretation will render the statute unconstitutional
-By taking this interpretation the Ct is saying that when Congress is faced with a
ss can shift these linear separations, what is the meaning of them?
b. The Courts Justification for Judicial Review
1. Federal Government is a gov’t of limited powers
a. the purpose of the Constitution is to establish those limits
b. If no judicial review power, then Congress would be the judge of their own powers, inappropriate because purpose of Constitution is to limit powers, including powers of the Federal Court, therefore the article is equally applicable to the Courts
c. The Acts of Federal gov’t including Acts of Congress which are inconsistent with the Constitution must be understood as being invalid
2. Marshall misdirects our attention; does the Court have the authority to render acts of Congress unconstitutional?
a. no, the Congress itself can
b. the president may veto
c. the people (ex. Brown, segregation)
