In the case of Brooks v. Marbury, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether or not a writ of mandamus should be issued by Secretary of State James Madison in order to compel him to deliver certain documents that had been signed by President Thomas Jefferson. The court ultimately ruled against issuing the writ, finding that it would violate Article III Section 2 of the Constitution which states that "the judicial power shall extend only to cases and controversies." This ruling established an important precedent for judicial review as it determined that Congress could not pass laws which were contrary to those set forth in the Constitution. Furthermore, this decision also highlighted how even though some powers are granted through legislation they can still be limited if they conflict with constitutional principles.

In the case of Brooks v. Marbury, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that while William Marbury was legally entitled to his commission as justice of the peace for Washington D.C., it was not within the power of the Supreme Court to issue a writ ordering Secretary James Madison to deliver it. He reasoned that although Congress had passed an act granting such authority, this did not give them jurisdiction over executive officers like Madison who were outside their purview and thus could not be compelled by judicial order. Furthermore, Marshall stated that even if they did have jurisdiction, issuing such orders would violate separation of powers since it would involve interference with another branch's duties and responsibilities. Ultimately, he concluded that while Marbury may have been wronged by Madison's refusal to honor his appointment letter, there was no legal remedy available through the courts due to lack of jurisdiction or violation of constitutional principles regarding separation powers between branches government