Marbury v.

Madison
Brief Fact Summary. William Marbury (Marbury), an end-of-term appointee of President John Adams
(President Adams) to a justice of the peace position in the District of Columbia, brought suit against
President Thomas Jeffersons (President Jefferson) Secretary of State, James Madison, seeking delivery
of his commission.
Facts. Before the inauguration of President Jefferson, outgoing President Adams attempted to secure
Federalist control of the judiciary by creating new judgeships and filling them with Federalist
appointees. Included in these efforts was the nomination by President Adams, under the Organic Act of
the District of Columbia (the District), of 42 new justices of the peace for the District, which were
confirmed by the Senate the day before President Jeffersons inauguration. A few of the commissions,
including Marburys, were undelivered when President Jefferson took office. The new president
instructed Secretary of State James Madison to withhold delivery of the commissions. Marbury sought
mandamus in the Supreme Court, requiring James Madison to deliver his commission.
Issue. Is Marbury entitled to mandamus from the Supreme Court?
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) has constitutional
authority to review executive actions and legislative acts. The Supreme Court has limited jurisdiction,
the bounds of which are set by the United States Constitution (Constitution), which may not be enlarged
by the Congress.
Baker v. Carr
Brief Fact Summary. Appellants brought suit, challenging malapportionment of state legislatures under
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts. Apportionment cases had often been brought under the Guaranty Clause of Article IV, Section: 4
of the United States Constitution (Constitution), in which the United States guarantees to the individual
states a republican form of government. The Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) has
long held that such challenges present a political question, not addressable by the courts. In the current
case, Appellants challenged the state apportionment of legislatures under the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment.
Issue. Is it possible to bring a malapportionment claim without raising a nonjusticiable political issue?
Synopsis of Rule of Law. An apportionment case may be reviewed on Fourteenth Amendment grounds,
so long as these grounds are independent from political question elements.
Nixon v. United States
Brief Fact Summary. The Petitioner, Nixon (Petitioner), a former federal judge, asks the Supreme Court
of the United States (Supreme Court) to decide whether Senate Rule XI, as applied in his impeachment
trial, is constitutional.
Facts. The Petitioner, a former Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi, was sentenced to prison for lying under oath to a federal grand jury. The Petitioner refused
to resign from his post and continued to draw his salary while incarcerated. In the ensuing impeachment
trial, the Senate invoked Rule XI, which allowed a Senate committee to receive evidence and testimony.
The committee provided full transcripts and summaries to the entire Senate and more than the
necessary two-thirds voted to impeach on two of the three articles. Nixon now appeals, arguing that
Rule XI violates the impeachment trial clause, Art. I Section: 3, cl. 6 of the United States Constitution
(Constitution).

Issue. Does Petitioner have the right to have the entire Senate receive evidence and testimony?
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Impeachment trials are nonjusticiable.
Goldwater v. Carter
Brief Fact Summary. The Defendant, United States President Jimmy Carter (Defendant), rescinded a
treaty with Taiwan as part of recognizing the Peoples Republic of China. The Plaintiff, United States
Senator Barry Goldwater (Plaintiff), sued, alleging that the Senate must rescind treaties.
Facts. While recognizing the Peoples Republic of China, the Defendant rescinded the United States
treaty with Taiwan. Plaintiff sued, arguing that as the Senate must ratify treaties, the Senates approval
is also required to rescind treaties.

Issue. Is the present case justiciable?
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Questions of a purely political nature are nonjusticiable.