Morrison v. Olson
E722001
Morrison v. Olson is a 1988 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the independent counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act, clarifying limits on presidential removal power and separation of powers.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Morrison v. Olson canonical | 2 |
| Morrison v. Olson (D.C. Circuit phase) | 1 |
Statements (50)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
federal courts case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
administrative law
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ federal criminal procedure ⓘ separation of powers ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 1988-04-26 ⓘ |
| chiefJusticeAtDecision | William H. Rehnquist NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| citation | 487 U.S. 654 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Appointments Clause of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Article II Take Care Clause NERFINISHED ⓘ Article III limitations on judicial power NERFINISHED ⓘ separation of powers doctrine ⓘ |
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decidedIn | October Term 1987 ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1988-06-29 ⓘ |
| defendant | Theodore B. Olson NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| dissentingOpinionBy | Antonin Scalia NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| dissentType | solo dissent ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 87-1279 ⓘ |
| fullName | Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988) NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| holding |
The Act does not impermissibly interfere with the President’s constitutional duty to ensure the faithful execution of the laws.
ⓘ
The independent counsel is an inferior officer whose appointment by a special court is consistent with the Appointments Clause. ⓘ The independent counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act do not violate the separation of powers principle. ⓘ The restrictions on the Attorney General’s power to remove an independent counsel for cause are constitutional. ⓘ |
| impact |
became a leading precedent on limits of presidential removal power
ⓘ
frequently cited in later debates over the unitary executive theory ⓘ upheld the constitutionality of the independent counsel mechanism until its later expiration and replacement by other special counsel regulations ⓘ |
| issue | constitutionality of the independent counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 ⓘ |
| joinedMajority |
Antonin Scalia
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Byron R. White NERFINISHED ⓘ Harry A. Blackmun NERFINISHED ⓘ John Paul Stevens NERFINISHED ⓘ Sandra Day O’Connor NERFINISHED ⓘ Thurgood Marshall NERFINISHED ⓘ William J. Brennan Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| keyConcept |
for-cause removal protection
ⓘ
independent counsel ⓘ inferior officer ⓘ principal officer ⓘ special division of the D.C. Circuit ⓘ |
| lowerCourtCitation | 838 F.2d 1345 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ⓘ |
| lowerCourtDisposition | affirmed in part and reversed in part ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | William H. Rehnquist NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| notableFeature | Justice Scalia’s dissent argued that the decision undermined the unitary executive and would be viewed as a constitutional mistake. ⓘ |
| originatingCourt | United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| plaintiff | Alexia Morrison NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| statuteInterpreted | Ethics in Government Act of 1978 NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| statuteSectionInterpreted | Title VI of the Ethics in Government Act (independent counsel provisions) ⓘ |
| vote | 7-1 decision ⓘ |
Referenced by (3)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
subject surface form:
Laurence Silberman
this entity surface form:
Morrison v. Olson (D.C. Circuit phase)