Case Citator › Marbury v. Madison

Marbury v. Madison

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
169 of 169
Citing cases (total)
5,996
Treatment dates
1926
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. All 169 flagged citations for Marbury v. Madison have been read, and the one confirmed treatment is listed below. Myers v. United States held that Marbury's discussion of presidential removal was nonbinding dictum and, if it was a decision, had been overruled by Parsons v. United States.
More on how this was screened

The remaining opinions applied Marbury's judicial-review, remedy, appointment, mandamus, and original-jurisdiction principles; reported Myers, Parsons, or an asserted limiting effect of Chevron; rejected arguments that Marbury should be overruled; or used nearby adverse language for other authorities, statutes, rights, and trial rulings.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

5,996 later cases cite Marbury v. Madison; 169 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Marbury v. Madison?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in Part

  • The Supreme Court held that Marbury's statement restricting presidential removal was nonbinding dictum and, if it was a decision, had been overruled by Parsons.

    Myers v. United States · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    The language of the Court in Marbury v. Madison, already referred to, was pressed upon this Court to show that Parsons was entitled, against the Presidential action of removal, to continue in office. If it was authoritative and stated the law as to an executive office, it ended the cáse; but this Court did not recognize it as such, for the reason that the Chief Justice’s language relied on was not germane to the point decided in Marbury v. Madison. If his language was more than a dictum, and was a decision, then the Parson’s case overrules it.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Marbury v. Madison and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace