Morrison v. Olson: Upholding Independent Counsel Provisions and Affirming Separation of Powers

Morrison v. Olson: Upholding Independent Counsel Provisions and Affirming Separation of Powers

Introduction

Morrison, Independent Counsel v. Olson et al. (487 U.S. 654, 1988) is a landmark United States Supreme Court case that addressed the constitutionality of the independent counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. The case emerged from a dispute between the House Judiciary Committee and the Department of Justice regarding the withholding of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) documents. The central issue was whether the statute allowing for the appointment of an independent counsel infringed upon the Constitution's separation of powers and the Appointments Clause.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, in a majority opinion authored by Chief Justice Rehnquist, held that the independent counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act do not violate the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, Article III limitations, nor the principle of separation of powers. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, affirming the constitutionality of vesting the appointment of an independent counsel in the Special Division of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The decision extensively referenced several key precedents:

  • BLAIR v. UNITED STATES (1919): Limited the scope of constitutional issues that could be raised by individuals held in contempt of court.
  • Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935): Addressed the removal of executive officers and upheld restrictions when dealing with "quasi-legislative" or "quasi-judicial" agencies.
  • MYERS v. UNITED STATES (1926) and BOWSHER v. SYNAR (1986): Discussed the President's removal power over executive officers.
  • UNITED STATES v. EATON (1898), EX PARTE SIEBOLD (1880), and Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States (1931): Defined criteria distinguishing "principal" from "inferior" officers.

These cases collectively informed the Court's approach to evaluating the Appointments Clause and separation of powers in the context of the independent counsel's role.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's reasoning can be distilled into three primary holdings:

  1. Appointments Clause Compliance: The independent counsel is classified as an "inferior officer" because of their limited jurisdiction, restricted duties, and subordination to the Attorney General, who retains removal authority. This classification permits Congress to vest appointment authority in the judiciary.
  2. Article III Considerations: The Special Division's roles under the Act do not constitute a violation of Article III, as they are incidental to the appointment and do not impose nonjudicial executive duties on the judiciary.
  3. Separation of Powers: The Act does not infringe upon the Executive Branch's authority because it maintains sufficient executive control through the Attorney General's ability to remove the independent counsel for good cause and limits judicial interference to procedural oversight.

The Court emphasized that the independent counsel's functions are akin to those of other federal officers who operate with a degree of independence but remain under executive oversight, thus preserving the constitutional balance between branches.

Impact

The decision in Morrison v. Olson had profound implications:

  • Affirmation of Independent Oversight: It validated the use of independent counsels to investigate high-ranking officials, reinforcing mechanisms for checks and balances within the federal government.
  • Clarification of Officer Classification: The ruling provided clearer guidelines on distinguishing between principal and inferior officers, influencing future appointments and their judicial evaluations.
  • Separation of Powers Reinforcement: By upholding the Act, the Court maintained the structural integrity of the U.S. government, ensuring that each branch operates within its constitutional confines without overreach.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Appointments Clause

The Appointments Clause (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution) stipulates that "Principal Officers" must be appointed by the President with the Senate's consent. However, "inferior officers" can be appointed by the President alone, by heads of departments, or by the judiciary as Congress deems appropriate.

Independent Counsel

An independent counsel is a special prosecutor appointed to investigate and potentially prosecute high-ranking government officials. Their independence is designed to prevent conflicts of interest, ensuring unbiased investigations.

Separation of Powers

This constitutional principle ensures that the three branches of government (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) operate independently without encroaching on each other's domains. It prevents any single branch from gaining excessive power.

Conclusion

Morrison v. Olson stands as a pivotal case affirming the constitutionality of the independent counsel system established by the Ethics in Government Act. By classifying the independent counsel as an "inferior officer" and ensuring that executive oversight remains intact, the Supreme Court upheld mechanisms essential for maintaining governmental checks and balances. This decision reinforced the separation of powers doctrine, ensuring that investigative and prosecutorial functions could be conducted with necessary independence while preserving executive authority.

Case Details

Year: 1988
Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Judge(s)

William Hubbs RehnquistAntonin Scalia

Attorney(S)

Alexia Morrison, appellant, argued the cause pro se. With her on the briefs were Earl C. Dudley, Jr., and Louis F. Claiborne. Michael Davidson argued the cause for the United States Senate as amicus curiae in support of appellant. With him on the brief were Ken U. Benjamin, Jr., and Morgan J. Frankel. Thomas S. Martin argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief for appellee Olson were Anthony C. Epstein, David E. Zerhusen, David W. DeBruin, and Carl S. Nadler. Brendan V. Sullivan, Jr., Barry S. Simon, Jacob A. Stein, and Robert F. Muse filed a brief for appellees Schmults et al. Solicitor General Fried argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae in support of appellees. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Bolton, Deputy Solicitors General Cohen and Bryson, Deputy Assistant Attorneys General Spears and Cynkar, Edwin S. Kneedler, Richard G. Taranto, Robert E. Kopp, and Douglas Letter. Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Bar Association by Robert MacCrate and Irvin B. Nathan; for Common Cause by Archibald Cox, Donald J. Simon, Paul A. Freund, and Philip B. Heymann; for the Center for Constitutional Rights by Morton Stavis, Michael Ratner, Frank Askin, and Daniel Pollitt; for Public Citizen by Eric R. Glitzenstein and Alan B. Morrison; for Burton D. Linne et al. by Edwin Vieira, Jr.; and for Lawrence E. Walsh by Laurence H. Tribe, Paul L. Friedman, and Guy Miller Struve. Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for Michael K. Deaver by Herbert J. Miller, Jr., and Randall J. Turk; and for Edward H. Levi et al. by David A. Strauss. Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the Speaker and Leadership Group of the House of Representatives by Steven R. Ross, Charles Tiefer, and Michael L. Murray; for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations by Robert M. Weinberg, Michael H. Gottesman, and Lawrence Gold; and for Whitney North Seymour, Jr., by Mr. Seymour, pro se, George F. Hritz, Benjamin R. Civiletti, and Ramsey Clark.

Comments