Assignment 1

docx

School

Strayer University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

420

Subject

Political Science

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by MateRain12999

1 Case Brief Marbury v. Madison Facts of the Case This case was a political conflict between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. President John Adams made several appointments in the circuit court and signed commissions on his last day of presidency. Secretary of State James Madison chose not to process those commissions (Hartley, 1). William Marbury petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to force Madison to issue his appointment and commission. Procedural History In December 1801, William Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to force James Madison to issue his appointment and process his commission. In February 1803, they argued the matter and decided (FindLaw, 2). Issue(s) Does Marbury have a right to the commission he petitioned for? If he does have a right and it has been violated, will the laws of his country remedy the violation of this right? If they fix this right’s transgression, is a mandamus issuing from this court appropriate? Decision by the Court The Court decides that Marbury has a right to the commission he is asking for, and his country will remedy the violation of that right, but issuing a mandamus is inappropriate. Reasoning and Rule of Law Applied by the Court The reasoning behind the decision of this case is that the President signed the commission of William Marbury, appointing him a justice of the peace, and the Secretary of State affixed the Seal of the United States, verifying the signature and completing the appointment, giving Mr. Marbury the right to the office for five years. The reason that the writ of mandamus is not appropriate is that this is only necessary if the individual has no other legal option.

2 Analysis and Importance of the Case This case is critical because the right of judicial review established the power of the U.S. Supreme Court to review and determine the constitutionality of acts of Congress and the executive branch. Case Brief Grutter v. Bollinger Facts of the Case Grutter filed this suit against a law school after being denied admission, alleging that the law school discriminated against her based-on race in violation of the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment. She claims that she was rejected because the school uses race as one of the most critical factors, giving applicants that belong to certain minorities a better chance of admission than students that have similar grades and test scores from an unfavorable race; and that they cannot justify that use of race (FindLaw, 3). Procedural History The District Court found the school’s use of race as a factor of admissions unlawful. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding Justice Powell’s opinion in another case. Issue(s) Is the school unjust in using race as a factor in admissions? Decision by the Court The decision by the Court is that the school’s use of race in admissions decisions to further an interest in getting educational benefits that come from having a diverse student body is not prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI. Reasoning and Rule of Law Applied by the Court

3 The reasoning behind this decision is that “the Court endorses Justice Powell’s view that student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify using race in university admissions. The Court defers to the school’s educational judgment that diversity is essential to its educational mission (FindLaw, 3). Analysis and Importance of the Case The importance of this case is that the Court’s decision upheld the school’s affirmative action admissions policy, permitting the use of racial preference in student admissions to promote student diversity. Checks and Balances Checks and balances ensure that no person or department has absolute control. One of the checks and balances is narrowly tailored admissions programs to consider race as a “plus” instead of race being a desired qualification in competition with other applicants. Universities cannot establish quotas for minorities or put them on separate admissions tracks (FindLaw, 3).

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

4 Sources 1. Richard Hartley. 2018. Criminal Courts: Structure, Process, and Issues. Book. 2. FindLaw. No date. Marbury v. Madison. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme- court/5/137.html. 3. FindLaw. No date. Grutter v. Bollinger. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme- court/539/306.html.

Assignment 1

Related Documents