Ever wondered what happened to well-known Supreme Court plaintiffs after their cases came to an end? Today, we’re launching a new series of Closer Looks exploring that very topic.
At the Court
Morning Reads
Miriam Jordan and Madeleine Ngo, The New York Times
Dan McLaughlin, National Review
On Site
The Trump administration on Monday asked the Supreme Court to allow it to fully implement an executive order signed by President Donald Trump that seeks to impose additional restrictions on mail-in voting. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer called an order by a federal judge in Massachusetts that paused portions of the order in 23 states and the District of Columbia “extraordinary,” and he argued that it “flouts settled” doctrines governing when courts can weigh in on a dispute.
As we noted in yesterday’s newsletter, The SCOTUSblog Summit: 2026 Term Preview, an afternoon of conversations and analysis on the Supreme Court, will be held at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg Center in Washington, D.C. on Sept. 16. Registration will open soon.
In his Empirical SCOTUS column, Adam Feldman analyzed the 56 signed decisions in cases argued during the 2025-26 term, exploring whether certain features of the oral argument in those cases, like the number of words and speaking turns directed to each side, predicted the outcome.
In a column for SCOTUSblog, Gabe Roth explained why he believes the justices’ practice of publishing and promoting books deserves the type of scrutiny that court-watchers to this point have primarily reserved for gifts and travel.
In a column for SCOTUSblog, Craig Konnoth revisited West Virginia v. B.P.J., in which the Supreme Court held that state bans forbidding transgender girls from participating in girls’ sports violated neither Title IX nor the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Konnoth contended that the challengers’ case would have been stronger had they focused on what factors should determine whether someone is a biological female under federal law.
Podcasts
Will Baude and Dan Epps discussed T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp., in which the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, pronounced dead in the Green Bag two decades ago, proved alive enough to reach state-court judgments still on appeal. They tried to figure out what the doctrine actually is and why the court’s committed formalists split down the middle.
William Marbury
In the coming weeks, SCOTUSblog will be running a series of Closer Looks on some of the most well-known Supreme Court plaintiffs. We felt it made sense to start with William Marbury, from the rather minor case ofMarbury v. Madison.
William Marbury was born in November 1762, likely on a tobacco plantation near Piscataway, Maryland. His grandfather, Francis Marbury, was an English immigrant, who made immense wealth off of property and served as a justice at the county court. Marbury’s father, also named William, inherited one-fifth of his father’s lands, but struggled to make money in the tobacco industry, which was hampered by Britain monopolizing the market and placing large duties on exports.
Marbury’s youth was spent moving from place to place as his father chased futile attempts to gain wealth. Perhaps influenced by his father’s failure in that regard, Marbury pursued a career in finance. In 1781, Marbury began working as a clerk to the Maryland auditor general and for much of the rest of the decade as a deputy tax collector.
In 1791, Marbury was named the deputy agent for the state of Maryland and then in 1796 the agent for the state, in which he handled financial agreements, collected back taxes, and sold estates. Around this time, he was welcomed into Potomac Federalist circles. In 1798, Marbury became an agent to the Washington Navy Yard, where he would be tasked with overseeing the construction of a naval yard at the Anacostia River.
In the waning days of the Adams administration, President John Adams nominated Marbury to serve as a justice of the peace for the District of Columbia. Marbury had actively worked to try and re-elect Adams through the Electoral College during the election of 1800.
Despite being confirmed by the Senate and Adams signing his commission, this was never delivered to Marbury. Newly elected President Thomas Jefferson, unwilling to allow more Federalists to take the bench, instructed Secretary of State James Madison not to deliver the commission, prompting Marbury to file suit.
In the case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court ruled that Marbury was entitled to his commission and that normally a writ of mandamus (an order to a government official to do his or her duties) would be the appropriate remedy. However, Marbury filed his lawsuit directly at the Supreme Court, and the court held that the relevant provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 which purported to give the court original jurisdiction over the case was unconstitutional. As a result, the court lacked the authority to hear it and issue a writ of mandamus. This marked the first time that the Supreme Court declared an act of Congress to be unconstitutional – although it was perhaps not the first time that courts had engaged in judicial review.
Marbury never sought further legal action regarding his commission, resulting in him never becoming a justice of the peace. Instead, he continued his successful career in finance. He also involved himself in land speculation, purchasing land southeast of Washington D.C., as well as stock in Navy Yard Bridge Company, which had a bridge across the Anacostia River, and the Washington Turnpike, a toll road from Georgetown to Rockville, Maryland.
At the time of his passing in 1835, Marbury owned 37 enslaved people. His will stated that his estate would manumit his personal servant, Hamilton, after seven years. However, because the emancipation was delayed, it is unknown whether Hamilton was ever freed.
A portrait of Marbury facing a portrait of Madison hangs in the Supreme Court justices’ dining room – this was installed by Chief Justice Warren Burger in 1979.
