SCOTUS CASES

Marbury v Madison (1803):

Background: In 1801, President John Adam’s time in office was coming to an end, and due to his opposing party taking office, Adam’s appointed many judges from his own political party. John Marshall, secretary of state, was assigned the task of processing the judges “delivering their commissions,” and, unfortunately, failed to deliver 17 of them to the respective appointees. Marshall assumed that the succeeding secretary of state would finish the task; however, when Thomas Jefferson came into office he told his new secretary of state, James Madison to not deliver certain commissions because he did not want members of his opposing party to assume these judicial positions. William Marbury was appointed a justice of the peace of DC and was one of the appointees who did not receive their commission.

Issues: Does Marbury have a right to his commission? Can he sue the federal government for it? Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order the delivery of the commision?

Arguments for Marbury:

  • Marbury had a valid commision, regardless of it being delivered before the end of Adams’ term because the president ordered it.
  • The Judiciary Act of 1789 gives the Supreme Court the power to order the commission to be delivered.
  • Secretary of State Madison, as an official of the executive branch, was required to obey President Adams’ official act. Thus, the Court should exercise its authority under the Judiciary Act to issue a writ of mandamus against Madison instead.
  • Article III states that Congress can make exceptions to which cases have original jurisdiction in the Courts. This case falls under that jurisdiction.

Arguments for Madison:

  • The appointment of Marbury to his position was, indeed, invalid because his commission was not delivered before the expiration of Adams’ term as president.
  • The appointment of commissions raised a political issue, not a judicial one. Therefore, the Supreme Court should not be deciding this case.
  • The case falls under the appellate, not original, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It should be tried in the lower courts first.

Decision: The decision of the infamous Marbury v Madison case resulted in being much more significant than the resolution between Marbury and the new administration. The Supreme Court had a key part in this decision. The Court unanimously decided not to require Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury. They said that the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with the Constitution because it gave the Supreme Court more authority than it was given in Article III. Overall, this decision established the judicial branch as an equal partner with the executive and legislative branches within the government, with the power to rule actions of the other branches unconstitutional. The ruling said that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and established the Supreme Court as the final authority for interpreting it.

Baker v. Carr (1962):

Background: Throughout the United States, each state is held responsible for determining their legislative districts. For decades states drew districts how they wanted, so they were not always the fairest. There was a significant amount of migration from rural areas to cities in the 1950s and 1960s and the districts remained the same. Finally, people began questioning the legitimacy behind it. Federal courts often refused to hear these cases because they did not want to interfere in state affairs. States such as Tennessee have been using the same boundaries drawn over 100 years ago from a 1900 census. The distribution in this state has shifted tremendously so the question is, “why?”, or perhaps, “why not?” because deciphering if what was done was just or not is the basis of the case entirely.

There was a dramatic increase in those living in Memphis in 1960 than it had been in 1900 in Shelby County, and despite having more people they received the same representation as the now smaller counties did. The people of Shelby County began speaking out, with reason. The state constitution required revising the legislative district lines every 10 years to account for changes in population, but the state lawmakers ignored it and refused to redraw. An eligible voter who lived in an urban area of Shelby County (Memphis), Charles Baker, believed that he and similar residents of more heavily populated legislative districts were being denied “equal protection of the laws” under the 14th Amendment because their votes were “devalued.” Although, The District Court dismissed Baker’s complaint on the grounds that it lacked authority to decide the case. Baker appealed that decision up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear his case.

Issues: Do federal courts have the power to decide cases about the apportionment of the population into state legislative districts? How should we handle such cases?

Arguments for Baker (petitioner):

  • The courts should be able to decide this issue. The text of Article III, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution is clear: “judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution.” This issue arises under the Constitution because the right of the residents of Tennessee to “equal protection of the law” under the 14th Amendment was in focus.
  • “Political questions” that the courts should not address are not neatly defined and are determined by a number of factors. Just because there is an issue that involves politics, does not mean it is a “political question” that courts cannot decide. By refusing to decide political questions, courts are trying to avoid a situation where a co-equal branch of government is telling another what to do. But the courts would not be drawing new districts. The courts would simply be instructing the legislature to fix any constitutional violations.
  • Courts should not follow a long-held practice merely because it is a tradition. There needs to be an important and constitutional reason why the courts should not decide a case.
  • Baker’s complaint—that his vote does not count equally—is a very serious violation of his rights. Many states have been unwilling to address this violation. In a case like this, the courts must get involved to protect people’s rights and prevent the harm that would happen if the situation is not addressed immediately.
  • The states suggest that voters’ concerns can be remedied by elected officials—that voters can lobby for state laws and practices. That solution is flawed. Most of the members of the Tennessee legislature benefited from the districting plan as it existed.

Argument for Carr (respondent):

  • The federal courts do not have the constitutional authority to review legislative districts. One branch of the government should not tell another what to do on a question that is committed to the discretion of that branch alone. All three branches—legislative, judicial, and executive—are equal in the Constitution, and co-equal bodies cannot interfere with each other’s basic functions.
  • If the courts decide this case, they will overstep their authority and abuse their power. The state of Tennessee can enforce its own laws and decide what legislative districts it thinks achieve the fairest representational system. The federal government should respect the state’s sovereignty and not force uniformity in an area where the Constitution left it to the states to decide how best to draw districts.
  • Federal courts have always viewed districting as a uniquely political function that states do not have to carry out in any particular way.
  • Even if the courts had authority to hear the case, there is nothing in the Constitution that says that state legislative districts must each have the same number of people. Nor is there any objective way to decide whether a state’s districting decisions are sufficiently “fair.”
  • The courts do not need to interfere with the democratic process. If the residents of Tennessee want to change how their legislature draws the state’s districts, they can encourage their elected officials to make that change through the existing democratic process.

Decision: In a 6–2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in favor of Baker. Justice Brennan wrote the opinion of the Court and was joined by Justice Black and Chief Justice Warren. Justices Douglas, Clark, and Stewart also joined in Justice Brennan’s majority opinion and wrote separate concurring opinions. Justice Frankfurter and Justice Harlan wrote dissenting opinions.