Morrison v. Olson

Case brief summary

Facts

Congress suspected a Justice Department official lied and two others wrongly withheld documents. A special court appointed an outside prosecutor to investigate, who then sent legal demands for documents to all three officials.

Procedural history

The officials asked a court to cancel the demands, claiming the law was unconstitutional. The district court disagreed, but the appeals court ruled the law unconstitutional. The Supreme Court then took the case.

Issue

Does the law creating an outside prosecutor break constitutional rules about how officials are appointed or how government powers must stay separated?

Holding

The Supreme Court held that the independent counsel law is constitutional in all the ways challenged, so the contempt order could stand and the case was sent back after reversing the court of appeals.

Reasoning

The Court found the independent counsel is an 'inferior officer' because she has limited duties, limited jurisdiction, limited time in office, and can be fired by the Attorney General, so Congress could let a special court appoint her instead of requiring Senate confirmation. The special court's other powers did not improperly turn judges into administrators or executives. Limiting removal of the independent counsel to only 'good cause' did not take away enough presidential control over law enforcement to upset the balance of power between the President and Congress.

Opinions

Majority (Rehnquist): The independent counsel law is constitutional because the counsel is an inferior officer, court appointment is proper, and removal limits do not improperly weaken presidential power.

Dissent (Scalia): Investigating and prosecuting crimes is purely executive power that the Constitution gives entirely to the President, so any law limiting his control over it is unconstitutional.