Yes. The US Supreme Court has discretionary authority to issue writs of mandamus when the case falls under their jurisdiction. Supreme Court Rules, Rule 20, outlines the conditions under which the Court may issue such a writ.
A Writ of Mandamus (Latin, "we command"), classified as an Extraordinary Writ, is an order compelling a public official, corporate officer, or agency to take a specified action within their scope of responsibility.
For more information, see Related Links and Related Questions, below.
Chat with our AI personalities
The most important effect of Marbury v. Madison, (1803), is that it affirmed the Supreme Court's right of judicial review and set a precedent for future cases. Judicial review is the power of the Court to evaluate laws relevant to cases before the court to determine their constitutionality, and to nullify (overturn) any they find unconstitutional.In Marbury, the Supreme Court decided Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because Congress had overreached its authority by granting the Court the right to issue all writs of mandamus, which contradicted the language of Article III of the Constitution.Case Citation:Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)
No. In the opinion of the Court, Marshall declared Marbury was entitled to his commission, but that the Supreme Court didn't have original jurisdiction to issue the writ of mandamus Marbury requested. Marshall explicitly stated Marbury would have to refile his case in a lower court first, then appeal to the Supreme Court if he failed to get relief at that level. Marbury never refiled his case.Case Citation:Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)For more information, see Related Questions, below.
supreme cort is the protector of funda mental rights.
The ruling in Marbury v. Madison, (1803) are related to the three questions posed to the Court:Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands?The Court determined that Marbury had a right to his commission, per An Act Concerning the District of Columbia that Congress passed in 1801, as well as Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, which granted the President the right to make judicial nominations. Marbury's nomination had already been approved by the Senate, then signed an sealed by the former President, making it official.If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?Because the answer to the first question was that Marbury was properly appointed as a justice of the peace, his legal rights had been violated when Madison withheld the paperwork necessary to assume office.Further, the laws of the United States afforded Marbury a remedy to this violation.If they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing from this court?The Supreme Court determined it did not have original jurisdiction over the case, but appellate, and therefore could not issue a writ of mandamus. Marbury had to initiate legal action against Madison in the lower federal courts before the Supreme Court could review his case.This decision was based on the Court's determination that the Judiciary Act of 1789, in which Congress delegated to the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over cases involving the federal government, was partially unconstitutional because it granted the Court powers not specified by the Constitution.Part 3 of the Marbury decision established the high court's right of judicial review over legislation passed by Congress and the President, as well as the power to overturn laws deemed to be unconstitutional.Case Citation:Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)
I am doing that exam paper right now! I think supreme court