In March 1801, just two days before his term as president ended, Adams appointed several dozen Federalist Party supporters to new circuit judge and justice of the peace positions in an attempt to frustrate Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans.

[6] In an opinion written by Marshall, who by then had been appointed Chief Justice of the United States, the Supreme Court held that Madison's refusal to deliver Marbury's commission was illegal.

In the fiercely contested U.S. presidential election of 1800, the three main candidates were Thomas Jefferson, Aaron Burr, and the incumbent president, John Adams.

[3][12] On March 2, 1801, just two days before his presidential term ended,[a] Adams nominated nearly 60 Federalist supporters to new circuit judge and justice of the peace positions the Federalist-controlled Congress had recently created.

These last-minute nominees—whom Jefferson's supporters derisively called the "Midnight Judges"—included William Marbury, a prosperous businessman from Maryland.

The appointees' commissions were immediately written out on parchment, then signed by Adams and sealed by Secretary of State John Marshall, who had been named the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in January but agreed to continue serving as Secretary of State for the remaining weeks of Adams's presidency.

[18] Turning to the second question, the Court said that the law provided Marbury a remedy for Madison's unlawful withholding of his commission.

[19][20] In what the American legal scholar Akhil Reed Amar called "one of the most important and inspiring passages" of the opinion,[21] Marshall wrote: The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury.The Court then confirmed that a writ of mandamus—a type of court order that commands a government official to perform an act his official duties legally require him to perform—was the proper remedy for Marbury's situation.

And be it further enacted, That the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all cases of a civil nature where a state is a party ... [and] suits or proceedings against ambassadors, or other public ministers ...

[9][29] Because the Court had interpreted the Judiciary Act to have given it original jurisdiction over lawsuits for writs of mandamus, this meant the Judiciary Act had taken the Constitution's initial scope for the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, which did not cover cases involving writs of mandamus, and expanded it to include them.

It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits.Marshall then gave several other reasons in favor of judicial review.

The rule must be discharged.Besides its legal issues, the case of Marbury v. Madison also created a difficult political dilemma for John Marshall and the Supreme Court.

Then, however, he also ruled that the Court could not grant Marbury his requested writ of mandamus, which gave Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans the result they desired.

[45] The American political historian Robert G. McCloskey described: [Marbury v. Madison] is a masterwork of indirection, a brilliant example of Marshall's capacity to sidestep danger while seeming to court it.

The danger of a head-on clash with the Jeffersonians was averted by the denial of jurisdiction: but, at the same time, the declaration that the commission was illegally withheld scotched any impression that the Court condoned the administration's behavior.

But the touch of genius is evident when Marshall, not content with having rescued a bad situation, seizes the occasion to set forth the doctrine of judicial review.

[48] Marshall "seized the occasion to uphold the institution of judicial review, but he did so in the course of reaching a judgment that his political opponents could neither defy nor protest.

"[48] The Supreme Court's historic decision in Marbury v. Madison continues to be the subject of critical analysis and inquiry.

[51] First, some criticize the way Marshall "strove" to reach the conclusion that the U.S. Supreme Court has constitutional authority over the other branches of the U.S. government.

[52] Some scholars have responded that the "constitutional avoidance" principle did not exist in 1803 and that it is "only a general guide for Court action", not an "ironclad rule".

[54] Alternatively, it has also been argued that the claim that Marshall "strove" to create a controversy largely vanishes when the case is viewed from the legal perspective of the late 18th century when American colonies' and states' supreme courts were largely modeled on England's Court of King's Bench, which inherently possessed mandamus powers.

[55] Second, Marshall's arguments for the Court's authority are sometimes said to be mere "series of assertions", rather than substantive reasons logically laid out to support his position.

"[56] Marshall's assertion of the American judiciary's authority to review executive branch actions was the most controversial issue when Marbury was first decided, and several subsequent U.S. presidents have tried to dispute it, to varying degrees.

[16] In hindsight, the fact that Marshall did not recuse himself from Marbury is likely indicative of his eagerness to hear the case and use it to establish judicial review.

"[57] Although the Court's opinion in Marbury established the power of judicial review in American federal law, it did not invent or create it.

[58] The idea became widely accepted in Colonial America—especially in Marshall, Jefferson, and Madison's native Virginia—under the theory that in America only the people were sovereign, not the government, and so the courts should only implement legitimate laws.

[58][59] American courts' "independent power and duty to interpret the law" was well established by the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787,[60] and Hamilton had defended the concept in Federalist No.

[62] Marbury also established that the power of judicial review covers actions by the executive branch—the President and his cabinet members.

[63][64] Although it is a potent check on the other branches of the U.S. government, federal courts rarely exercised the power of judicial review in early American history.

After deciding Marbury in 1803, the Supreme Court did not strike down another federal law until 1857, when it struck down the Missouri Compromise in its now-infamous decision Dred Scott v. Sandford, a ruling that contributed to the outbreak of the American Civil War.