Marbury, original jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court's supervisory powers

Conventional accounts of Marbury v. Madison portray Chief Justice Marshall as having contrived the conflict that set the stage for his famous exegesis on judicial review. This Article collects an array of evidence that provid es surprisingly strong support for Marshall's supposedly contrived conclusi ons as to the freestanding nature of mandamus, the meaning of the judiciary Art of 1789, and the requirements of Article III. Such evidence not only c alls for a reevaluation of Marbury and its legacy, but also suggests that M arshall may have deliberately obscured the special supervisory role that th e Supreme Court may have been expected to play in relation to inferior cour ts and officers. Marshall's account may have even influenced the official d epiction of the mandamus power, resulting in post-Marbury versions of the s tatute that differ from the one he likely relied upon in 1803.