Briefing Cases Lowering Court Holding

Briefing Cases Lowering Court Holding

Instructions/Descriptions

Briefing Cases Lowering Court Holding

(adapted from David M. O’Brien, University of Virginia, 1998)

You will understand the cases and constitutional issues contained therein and do much better on your exams if you have access to a brief synopsis and analysis of the assigned case law. This is best done by following a set pattern when briefing cases. While there is no single, accepted way for briefing a case, the following seven-step example is one way it might be done. You should ALWAYS read the case in its entirety first before beginning your brief.

1. Title and Citation:Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch (5 U.S.) 137 (1803).
2. Facts: A brief statement identifying the parties and/or circumstances that led to the controversy and the lower court holding.

Outgoing President John Adams commissioned fellow Federalist party member William Marbury to serve as a Justice of the Peace for the District of Columbia. His nomination was confirmed by the Senate, but the commission appointing him was never delivered by Adams’ Secretary of State, John Marshall.

When President Jefferson came into office, he directed his new Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver Marbury’s commission. Marbury petitioned the Court (and its new Chief Justice, John Marshall) to issue a writ of mandamus ordering Madison to deliver the commission, consistent with the provisions of Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 which empowered the Court to issue such writs.

3. Legal Question (s) Presented:What is the nature of the conflict the Court must resolve? The legal question(s) is (are) often stated by the Court at the beginning of its opinion. You should answer each question presented with a “yes” or “no,” reflecting the Court’s consideration of that question.

A). Has Marbury a right to his commission? Yes; B) If a right has been violated do the laws afford a remedy? Yes.

C). Is the Court the legal body to afford such a remedy? No; D) Can the Court declare a law unconstitutional? Yes.

4. Opinion of the Court:The opinion refers to the legal reasoning which the Court offers as a justification for its holding. The Court’s reasoning often follows the order in which the legal questions are presented. You might find it helpful to outline the Court’s opinion.

[Order Now]

A). Completion of the appointment process establishes that Marbury has a clear legal right to his commission.

B). Authorities such as Blackstone’s Commentaries show that where there is a legal right there must be a legal remedy. B1) Madison violated Marbury’s right and thus a remedy is due Marbury.

C). The Court, however, cannot provide the remedy requested since that would require an expansion of its original jurisdiction as detailed in Article III of the Constitution; C1) Congress cannot expand or add to the Court’s original jurisdiction in violation of Article III. Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 appears to have enlarged the Court’s power by giving it the power to issue writs of mandamus.

1. D) The Court has the power to declare a law unconstitutional because 1) of the Supremacy Clause of Article VI; and 2) the Congress cannot enlarge the Court’s original jurisdiction; D1) It is the duty of the Courts to say what “the law is” since 1) judges take an oath to uphold the Constitution; 2) the Constitution specifies that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and 3) the Court’s power extends to ALL cases and controversies under the Constitution.
2. Holding:The Supreme Court’s ruling and whether it affirms or reverses the lower court’s decision.

[Order Now]

Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 (giving the Court the authority to grant writs of mandamus) is unconstitutional.

6. Separate Opinions:Both concurring (those that agree with the Court’s holding) and dissenting (those that disagree) opinions should be noted and their major points emphasized.

There were no separate opinions filed in Marbury.

7. Comments and Evaluation:A statement of the case’s legal, historical, and political importance as well as criticisms of the justices’ opinions and reasoning.

1) Marshall obviously should have disqualified himself from participating in this case. 2) The case should have been remanded to a lower court since the Court had no original jurisdiction in this area. 3) Marshall’s reading of Section 13 is open to criticism. 4) The case asserts the power of judicial review but not judicial supremacy as some Court critics have claimed.

Briefing Cases Lowering Court Holding

PLACE THE ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!