1. Marbury VS. Madison
1803

2. At the very end of his term, President John Adams had made many federal appointments, including William Marbury as justice of the peace in the District of Columbia.
Thomas Jefferson, the new president, refused to recognize the appointment of Marbury and would not finalize the commission process. 

3. The normal practice of making such appointments was to deliver a "commission," or notice, of appointment. This was normally done by the Secretary of State. Jefferson's Secretary of State at the time was James Madison. At the direction of Jefferson, Madison refused to deliver Marbury's commission. Marbury sued Madison, and the Supreme Court took the case.

4. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that the Judiciary Act of 1789, which spelled out the practice of delivering such commissions for judges and justices of the peace, was unconstitutional because it the gave the Supreme Court authority that was denied it by Article III of the Constitution. Thus, the Supreme Court said, the Judiciary Act of 1789 was illegal and not to be followed. This was the first time the Supreme Court struck down a law because it was unconstitutional. It was the beginning of the practice of "judicial review."

5. What was the outcome of this case?

6. In Marbury v. Madison, John Marshall said that William Marbury was entitled to the position that was granted by John Adams, but the final decision ultimately belonged to the new President, Thomas Jefferson. In a unanimous decision, written by Justice Marshall, the Court stated that Marbury, indeed, had a right to his commission. But, more importantly, the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional. In Marshall's opinion, Congress could not give the Supreme Court the power to issue an order granting Marbury his commission. Only the Constitution could, and the document said nothing about the Supreme Court having the power to issue such an order. Thus, the Supreme Court could not force Jefferson and Madison to appoint Marbury, because it did not have the power to do so. While Marbury never became a justice of the peace, the Court's ruling in Marbury v. Madison established a very important precedent. A precedent is a legal decision that serves as an example in later court cases. Chief Justice Marshall's ruling interpreted the Constitution to mean that the Supreme Court had the power of judicial review. That is, the Court had the right to review acts of Congress and, by extension, actions of the President. If the Court found that a law was unconstitutional, it could overrule the law. Marshall argued that the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land” and that the Supreme Court has the final say over the meaning of the Constitution. He wrote, “lt is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

7. In very simple terms, Marbury v
In very simple terms, Marbury v. Madison, is important because it was the first time a law of Congress was ever declared unconstitutional, or in conflict with the Constitution. If the Constitution is the law of the land and something is conflict with that law of the land, then that something is illegal.