The case of Marbury v. Madison plays an important role in the debate about the legitimacy of judicial review in the American constitutional system. The case went down in history as a famous Leading Case of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

We've already published articles on constitutional interpretation and its methods here on the IDP Blog . The current idea is to present a practical case to be explored in detail, so that legal professionals can understand how it works in a practical way.

Furthermore, the aforementioned case has a strong political character in its decision, which will be discussed later. Finally, it can be considered the starting point of judicial review in the United States, with repercussions throughout the world. Without further ado, shall we begin?

What was the Marbury v. Madison case?

It was in the United States of America that the idea of ​​a Constitution originated. It was also in the same place that, for the first time, it was established that the Judiciary would be responsible for overseeing the Constitution.

The judicial review of laws through exceptions first emerged with the landmark case of "Marbury v. Madison." This case established the doctrine of judicial review, which is essentially the judicial branch's control over laws and normative acts of the legislative and executive branches.

In addition to being the precedent that established the doctrine of "judicial review," the case of Marbury v. Madison was set against the backdrop of the battle between the Federalists, represented by President John Adams, and the Republican opposition, represented by President-elect Thomas Jefferson.

Throughout his time as President of the White House, Adams, who until then was a member of the Federalist Party, faced numerous criticisms from Republicans, particularly regarding his stance on the conflict between France and England.

The Federalists disagreed with the Republicans in that the U.S. had no historical debt to France, which is why they suffered considerable reprisals for such behavior.

In this sense, the elections for the American Congress were already taking place before the presidential election, with the Federalists being defeated by the Republicans. Thomas Jefferson, then Vice President of the USA and a member of the Republican party, defeated John Adams, the Federalist Party candidate seeking re-election.

Therefore, faced with his declared defeat and, consequently, the loss of influence in the Legislative and Executive branches, John Adams chose to maintain control of what little remained to him: the Judicial branch.

This is because, before leaving office, President Adams appointed his party members to various public positions, including lifetime appointments in the Judiciary, such as his Secretary of State, John Marshall, to the Supreme Court.

Marshall, however, remained in the position of Secretary of State until the last day of Adams's term, having been tasked by Adams with distributing the presidential-signed appointment certificates to all those nominated for public office, a task he did not accomplish as expected.

Therefore, William Marbury was appointed Justice of the Peace in Washington County, District of Columbia, without receiving the appointment certificate signed by President Adams. The new president, Thomas Jefferson, instructed his Secretary of State at the time, James Madison, not to deliver the remaining certificates from the previous administration.

Dissatisfied with not having been sworn in, Marbury requested that Madison be notified to present his reasons. Madison, on the other hand, chose not to respond, which is why Marbury filed a writ of mandamus directly with the Supreme Court.

Given the immense political complexity surrounding the case, the Supreme Court ultimately did not hear the case, which caused considerable outrage in the press and influenced public opinion.

The situation worsened when the executive expressed that a decision favorable to Marbury could cause a crisis between the branches of government, implying that the executive might not comply with a decision of the judiciary.

In turn, for the judiciary to simply reject the request would bring it a certain amount of wear and tear and a possible loss of credibility, in addition to ultimately harming the position of the independent branch of government.

Back in 1803, Justice John Marshall was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the very same Secretary of State under President Adams who refused to present Marbury with his title of appointment.

Thus, Marshall decided to recognize, on the merits, Marbury's right to take office, but did not grant that the order be carried out in light of a preliminary ruling that deemed unconstitutional Article 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus.

It was thus recognized that the Court could interfere in legislative texts contrary to the Constitution, demonstrating that the interpretation of laws must be "in harmony with the Constitution".

The American model has been refined through other court decisions over time, gaining traction in other states that understood the importance of a court acting as guardian of the document that organizes the state.

What is the importance of the Marbury v. Madison case in the Brazilian legal system?

The Marbury v. Madison case was a very important American jurisprudential precedent for Brazil, as it gave rise to what is known as diffuse constitutional review.

Diffuse constitutional review, by way of exception or defense, for the purposes of clarification, is that which allows the magistrate or collegiate body to analyze, in light of the specific case, the compatibility of a law or normative act with the Constitution and thus render a decision.

When considering this matter, the question relates to constitutionality, or lack thereof, which must be assessed before addressing the merits, as it is a necessary preliminary step to determine whether or not the rule is in accordance with the Constitution.

Through a historical retrospective, one can observe the evolution of constitutional review, especially due to the great influence exerted by the American, French, and Austrian models.

In the landmark case where, by issuing a decision declaring the nullity of any legal provision contrary to the constitutional precept, Justice John Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court decided in an innovative way, and could even be considered a pioneer in terms of diffuse constitutional review.

The model originated in the United States of America and gained particular prominence in Brazil as a defense mechanism for ordinary people, since, as seen, the actions of concentrated control have a range of legitimate parties.

In this way, the model gained doctrinal support, and Brazil ended up adopting the idea of ​​declaring unconstitutionality in specific cases with the assistance of the Supreme Federal Court.

Correlation of the case with the Brazilian constitutional system.

At this point, given the correlation between the two systems, the role of the Judiciary in reconciling sub-constitutional norms with the Constitution stands out, as does that of the Federal Senate, which, within its discretion in the context of diffuse constitutional review, can suspend the execution, in whole or in part, of a law declared unconstitutional by a final decision of the Supreme Federal Court, with erga omnes effects.

In the concentrated control of constitutionality, which limits the competence of only one court, as is the case in Brazil, the Supreme Federal Court is responsible for acting as the guardian of the "Magna Carta".

Therefore, the possibility of challenging constitutionality through specific legal actions can only be initiated by a specific group of authorized individuals with a legitimate interest in doing so.

In summary, the constitutional review currently in force in Brazil is based on the principle that all regulations, the primary normative instruments foreseen in article 59, must be analyzed by the Supreme Federal Court, as well as by judges and courts, and must find their validity in the Constitution.

Therefore, provisions incompatible with the "Magna Carta" must be, in one way or another, removed from the Brazilian legal system, thus guaranteeing the effectiveness of the Constitution and legal certainty.

References

Boaventura, Thiago Henrique. Get to know the Marbury vs. Madison case. JusBrasil.

LENZA, Pedro. Outlined Constitutional Law.

Trevisan, Thiago Valentim and Amaral, Sérgio Tibiriçá. The Marbury v. Madison case and the origin of diffuse constitutional review.