Bowsher v. Synar

E250301

United States Supreme Court case separation of powers case

Bowsher v. Synar is a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited congressional control over executive functions by ruling that Congress could not retain removal power over an official charged with executing federal budget cuts.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Statements Referenced by

All labels observed (3)

Label	Occurrences
Bowsher v. Synar canonical	3
Bowsher v. Synar (1986)	1
Bowsher, Comptroller General of the United States v. Synar et al.	1

Statements (48)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	United States Supreme Court case ⓘ separation of powers case ⓘ
concernsFunction	automatic deficit reduction ⓘ federal budget cuts ⓘ
concernsOffice	Comptroller General of the United States ⓘ
concernsStatute	Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 ⓘ surface form: Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 ⓘ surface form: Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Act
hasChiefJustice	Warren E. Burger ⓘ
hasCitation	478 U.S. 714 ⓘ
hasConcurrenceBy	Lewis F. Powell Jr. ⓘ
hasConstitutionalProvisionInvolved	Article I of the United States Constitution ⓘ Article II of the United States Constitution ⓘ separation of powers doctrine ⓘ
hasCountry	United States of America ⓘ surface form: United States
hasCourt	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
hasDecisionDate	1986-07-07 ⓘ
hasDissentBy	John Paul Stevens ⓘ Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ surface form: Sandra Day O'Connor William H. Rehnquist ⓘ
hasDocketNumber	85-1377 ⓘ
hasFullCaseName	Bowsher v. Synar self-linksurface differs ⓘ surface form: Bowsher, Comptroller General of the United States v. Synar et al.
hasImpact	limited congressional control over executive functions ⓘ reinforced the principle that Congress cannot both make and execute the laws ⓘ
hasJurisdiction	federal question jurisdiction ⓘ
hasLegalIssue	congressional control over execution of the laws ⓘ separation of powers ⓘ
hasMajorityJoinedBy	Byron R. White ⓘ Harry A. Blackmun ⓘ Potter Stewart ⓘ Thurgood Marshall ⓘ William J. Brennan Jr. ⓘ
hasMajorityOpinionBy	Warren E. Burger ⓘ
hasOutcome	portions of the Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Act were held unconstitutional ⓘ
hasPetitioner	Charles A. Bowsher ⓘ
hasPetitionerRole	Comptroller General of the United States ⓘ
hasProceduralPosture	appeal from a three-judge district court ⓘ
hasRespondent	Mike Synar ⓘ others challenging the Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Act ⓘ
hasSubjectMatter	deficit reduction ⓘ federal budget process ⓘ
hasYear	1986 ⓘ
held	Congress cannot reserve for itself the power of removal of an officer performing executive functions ⓘ Congress may not retain removal power over an officer charged with executing the laws ⓘ the Comptroller General exercises executive powers under the Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Act ⓘ
isRelatedCase	Humphrey’s Executor v. United States ⓘ surface form: Humphrey's Executor v. United States INS v. Chadha ⓘ Morrison v. Olson ⓘ Myers v. United States ⓘ

Referenced by (5)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 → relatedCourtCase → Bowsher v. Synar ⓘ

Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 → partiallyInvalidatedIn → Bowsher v. Synar ⓘ

GRH Act → legalChallenge → Bowsher v. Synar ⓘ

subject surface form: Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985

GRH Act → partiallyInvalidatedInCase → Bowsher v. Synar ⓘ

subject surface form: Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985

this entity surface form: Bowsher v. Synar (1986)

Bowsher v. Synar → hasFullCaseName → Bowsher v. Synar self-linksurface differs ⓘ

this entity surface form: Bowsher, Comptroller General of the United States v. Synar et al.