Editing Marbury v. Madison (section)

===The Supreme Court's jurisdiction===
[[File:USCapitol1800.jpg|thumb|right|upright=1.25|A painting of the [[U.S. Capitol]] as it appeared around the time of the ''Marbury'' decision ({{circa|1800}}). In addition to being the home of the [[United States Congress|U.S. Congress]], the Capitol also housed the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] from 1801 until the [[United States Supreme Court Building|Supreme Court Building]]'s completion in 1935.<ref>{{cite report |title=The Old Supreme Court Chamber, 1810–1860 |publisher=U.S. Senate Commission on Art |department=Office of Senate Curator |id=S. Pub. 113-3 |date=2015-06-24 |orig-year=2014-02-10 |url=https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/art/resources/pdf/Old_Supreme_Court.pdf}}</ref>]]
This brought the Court to the third question: did the Supreme Court have proper [[jurisdiction]] over the case that would allow it to legally issue the writ of mandamus that Marbury wanted?{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2019|loc=§&nbsp;2.2.1, p.&nbsp;43}} The answer depended entirely on how the Court interpreted the [[Judiciary Act of 1789]]. Congress had passed the Judiciary Act to establish the American federal court system. Section 13 of the Judiciary Act sets out the Supreme Court's original and appellate jurisdictions.

{{blockquote|text=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 ...  The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states, in the cases herein after specially provided for; and shall have power to issue ... writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.|source=Judiciary Act of 1789, Section 13 (emphasis added)|sign=}}

Marbury had argued that the wording of Section 13 had given the Supreme Court the authority to issue writs of mandamus when hearing cases under exclusive (original) jurisdiction, not only under appellate jurisdiction.{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2019|loc=§&nbsp;2.2.1, p.&nbsp;43}} As Marshall explains in the opinion, {{em|original jurisdiction}} gives a court the power to be the first to hear and decide a case; {{em|appellate jurisdiction}} gives a court the power to hear an appeal from a lower court's decision and to "revise and correct" the previous decision.{{sfnp|Epstein|2014|p=89}} The portion of Section 13 that speaks of the Court's power to issue writs of mandamus appears after its sentence on appellate jurisdiction, not with the earlier sentences on original jurisdiction, but a semicolon separates it from the clause on appellate jurisdiction. Section 13 does not make clear whether the mandamus clause was intended to be read as part of the appellate clause or on its own—in the opinion, Marshall quoted only the end of the section{{sfnp|Van Alstyne|1969|p=15}}—and the wording of the law can plausibly be read either way.{{sfnp|Nowak|Rotunda|2012|loc=§ 1.3, p.&nbsp;50}}

In the end, the Court agreed with Marbury and interpreted Section 13 of the Judiciary Act to have authorized the Court to exercise original jurisdiction over cases involving disputes over writs of mandamus.{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2019|loc=§&nbsp;2.2.1, p.&nbsp;44}}{{sfnp|Fallon|Manning|Meltzer|Shapiro|2015|pp=69–70}} This interpretation, however, meant that the Judiciary Act conflicted with Article III of the Constitution. Article III defines the Supreme Court's jurisdiction as follows:

{{blockquote|text=In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have ''original Jurisdiction''. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have ''appellate Jurisdiction'', both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.|source=U.S. Constitution, Article&nbsp;III, Section&nbsp;2 (emphasis added).}}

Article III says that the Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction over cases where a [[U.S. state]] is a party to a lawsuit or where a lawsuit involves foreign dignitaries. Neither of these categories covered Marbury's lawsuit, which was a dispute over a writ of mandamus for his justice of the peace commission. According to the Constitution, therefore, the Court did not have original jurisdiction over a case like Marbury's.{{sfnp|Epstein|2014|p=89}}{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2019|loc=§&nbsp;2.2.1, p.&nbsp;44}}

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. The Court ruled that Congress cannot increase the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction as it was set down in the Constitution, and it therefore held that the relevant portion of Section 13 of the Judiciary Act violated Article III of the Constitution.{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2019|loc=§&nbsp;2.2.1, p.&nbsp;44}}