How Marbury vs Madison can Improve Customer Service (Conclusion)

Marbury vs Madison provides an excellent case study on a decision-making strategy that can be used to improve customer service.

Last week, we proposed that Marbury vs Madison, a landmark Supreme Court case that focused on the constitutional principle of judicial review, presents an excellent case study of a decision-making strategy that can improve customer service. If you haven’t had a chance to read the background of the case, together with the Supreme Court’s dilemma, please take a moment to do so.

Recall that the Supreme Court was faced with two options:

• rule in favor of Marbury, and require Secretary of State Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury; or

• rule against Marbury, and allow President Jefferson to appoint his own justice of the peace in place of Marbury.

Neither option appealed to the Supreme Court. Why?

• First, if it ruled in favor of Marbury, the Supreme Court lacked the practical ability to enforce its decision. President Jefferson and Secretary of State Madison could – and likely would – simply ignore the Supreme Court’s decision and, by doing so, make the Supreme Court appear inept and powerless.

• Second, if it ruled in favor of Madison, the Supreme Court would make itself appear weak, as though it were easily intimidated by President Jefferson and his new administration

In one of the most brilliant face-saving decisions the Supreme Court has probably ever rendered, it simply refused to decide whether Madison was required to deliver the commission to Marbury.
What?

Yes, the Supreme Court “punted” and pursued “Plan C.”

The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction — in other words, its legal authority — to hear and decide cases is expressly limited by the actual language in Article III of the Constitution. Indeed, the Supreme Court possesses jurisdiction to hear and decide only a narrow group of cases. Marbury filed suit against Madison in the Supreme Court under a 1789 law, enacted by Congress, that purportedly “expanded” the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to issue a Writ of Mandamus — that is, a court order compelling a defendant, such as Madison, to do something, such as delivering the commission to Marbury.

And that was the Supreme Court’s “out.”

The Supreme Court held that the federal law enacted by Congress in 1789, purportedly “expanding” the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to issue a Writ of Mandamus, was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court reasoned that its legal authority to hear and decide cases was limited by the express language contained in Article III of the Constitution, and, therefore, Congress, in and of itself, could not unilaterally “expand” the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction without the Constitution being amended; in other words, Congress’s attempt to “expand” the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to hear and decide a case like Marbury’s violated the express jurisdictional limits imposed by the specific language of Article III of the Constitution. Therefore, the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction — that is, the legal authority — to even decide Marbury’s suit against Madison.

Marbury vs Madison illustrates an exceptional decision making strategy. At first, the Supreme Court appeared “trapped” in a no-win “either/or” dilemma: either decide in favor of, or against, Marbury. Ultimately, the Supreme Court pursued a third option — that is, a Plan C — which avoided the pitfalls of an undesirable “either/or” resolution. In the end, the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss Madison’s case for lack of jurisdiction proved brilliant and likely avoided a constitutional crisis.

Many times, it might appear as though your business or organization is restricted to an “either/or” option with a customer. However, as Marbury vs Madison reveals, a third option — that is, a Plan C — might be available.

Next time your business or organization appears to be limited to an “either/or” option with a customer, take a moment to think about, and pursue, a creative Marbury vs Madison solution.

Have a “customerific” week!

Mark