Plaintiff
State of Mississippi
Defendants
Andrew Johnson, General Edward O. C. Ord
Plaintiff's Claim
That the Supreme Court should prevent President Andrew Johnson from carryingout the provisions of the Reconstruction Act of 1867.
Chief Lawyers for Plaintiff
W. L. Sharkey, R. J. Walker
Chief Defense Lawyer
Henry Stanberry, U.S. Attorney General
Justices for the Court
Salmon Portland Chase (writing for the Court), Nathan Clifford, David Davis,Stephen Johnson Field, Robert Cooper Grier, Samuel Freeman Miller, Samuel Nelson, Noah Haynes Swayne, James Moore Wayne
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
15 April 1867
Decision
Denied plaintiff's claim.
Significance
The Court refused to limit a president's power to carry out the laws passed by Congress, keeping the separation of powers intact. By not ruling on the Reconstruction Act, the Court let stand the voting rights given to newly freed slaves. The ruling also helped define the executive's immunity from lawsuits designed to limit its political duties.
Before Mississippi v. Johnson, an acting president had never been named as an individual defendant in a case heard before the Supreme Court. But the case arose during a uniquely difficult time in American history. In the aftermath of the Civil War, the country was trying to heal itself and address the issues raised by the end of slavery. Collectively, the political programs implemented to restore order and rebuild the country were called Reconstruction.
In some ways, Reconstruction still pitted North against South, though now thebattle was fought with words and laws, not cannons, and the victorious Northheld the clear advantage. Following the lead of Abraham Lincoln, President Andrew Johnson tried to make Reconstruction a conciliatory process. But by 1867, a faction in Congress known as the Radical Republicans had taken control of Reconstruction. Many of these Republicans had been strong abolitionists before the war. Now, their primary concern was asserting control over the beatenConfederacy and establishing the rights of the South's newly freed slaves.
The Reconstruction Act of 1867 was one of the Radical Republicans first majorlegislative programs. The act divided the old Confederacy into five regions,each ruled by a military governor, with military courts to hear civil matters. As a condition for reentering the Union, the Southern states were also required under the act to draft new constitutions that gave African Americans the right to vote. (The law, however, did not extend that right to Northern blacks.)
The Reconstruction Act threw the South into an uproar. Within a month of thebill's passage, the state of Mississippi charged the act was blatantly unconstitutional. The state asked the Supreme Court to impose a permanent injunction preventing President Johnson and the area's military governor, Edward O. C.Ord, from executing the law.
The Case Against Johnson and the Reconstruction Act
In their motion to the Court, attorneys W. L Sharkey and R. J. Walker attacked the bill's intent. "It annuls and abrogates the state government and stateconstitutions, and substitutes a mere military power." The federal governmenthad already gotten into constitutional trouble using military authority in civil matters. In 1866, the Court ruled in Ex Parte Milligan that the government could not declare martial law in areas outside a war zone that hadexisting civil governments and courts. Mississippi was no longer at war withthe federal government, and the state did have its own civil government in place.
Sharkey and Walker also asserted that the Supreme Court did have jurisdictionin this matter. "The Constitution is supreme; all officers are subordinate to the supreme law, and consequently subordinate to the command of the department [the Supreme Court] whose duty it is to enforce subordination by declaring the meaning, the extent, and the limitations of the Constitution."
Without mentioning it by name, the plaintiffs also brought up the precedent of Marbury v. Madison. In that famous 1803 decision, Chief Justice JohnMarshall had distinguished between a president's "ministerial" and "political" duties. The Court could compel the president to carry out a ministerial duty ordered by Congress. In this case, the plaintiffs argued, carrying out theReconstruction Act was ministerial, and so fell under the Court's jurisdiction.
The Court Says No
The Supreme Court denied the motion to consider the permanent injunction against the Reconstruction Act. The Court noted that bringing suit against a sitting president was unprecedented, and that was held against the plaintiffs. But the Court also relied on specific points of law in its decision.
Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Chase first looked at the issue of ministerial versus political duties. Executing the Reconstruction Act, he argued,was a political duty.
The Court did not examine the constitutionality of the Reconstruction Act, remarking that even if it were unconstitutional, the Court could not prevent the president from executing it. The Constitution, the Court reasoned, requiresCongress to pass the laws, the president to execute them, and the Court to review them once they have been put into place. But the Court has no power toreview a law before it is executed. The Court kept the separation of powers intact.
After the decision in Mississippi, President Johnson did carry out theReconstruction Act. The Court again examined the law's constitutionality in1868, when the state of Georgia filed a similar suit. The Court let the Radical Republicans carry out their brand of Reconstruction.
In a judicial sense, Mississippi helped shape the notion of executiveimmunity. The president was now immune from suits that tried to prevent him from carrying out a law--if it fell under his political duties. Eventually, presidential immunity was expanded, in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982). In that case, the Court ruled the president was immune from personal liability lawsuits for acts he performed while in office.
Related Cases
Salmon Portland Chase
Salmon Portland Chase (1808-73), sixth chief justice of the Supreme Court, served on the Court at the height of the Reconstruction Era, from 1864 to 1873.He presided over pivotal cases such as Mississippi v. Johnson (1866),Ex Parte Milligan (1866), the Test-Oath Cases (1867), and theSlaughterhouse Cases (1873).
An opponent of slavery, Chase gained a reputation as a defender of runaway slaves in his Cincinnati law practice. He ran for the Senate with the Free-SoilParty in 1848 and became known as a leading anti-slavery senator, outspokenin his opposition to the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act. In 1855 Chase, who helpedform the Republican Party, became governor of Ohio. In 1860 Chase, then backin the Senate, sought the presidency. But when Abraham Lincoln emerged as theparty favorite, he accepted a position as secretary of the treasury. Chase ran against Lincoln in the 1864 elections, months after he resigned his Cabinet post. Lincoln nominated Chase as chief justice in 1864. Initially opposingthe radical Republicans and advocating a moderate approach toward the formerConfederacy, Chase upheld the powers of Congress and the principles of the Reconstruction in cases such as Texas v. White (1868).
Sources
West's Encyclopedia of American Law. St. Paul, MN: West Group, 1998.
State of Mississippi
Defendants
Andrew Johnson, General Edward O. C. Ord
Plaintiff's Claim
That the Supreme Court should prevent President Andrew Johnson from carryingout the provisions of the Reconstruction Act of 1867.
Chief Lawyers for Plaintiff
W. L. Sharkey, R. J. Walker
Chief Defense Lawyer
Henry Stanberry, U.S. Attorney General
Justices for the Court
Salmon Portland Chase (writing for the Court), Nathan Clifford, David Davis,Stephen Johnson Field, Robert Cooper Grier, Samuel Freeman Miller, Samuel Nelson, Noah Haynes Swayne, James Moore Wayne
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
15 April 1867
Decision
Denied plaintiff's claim.
Significance
The Court refused to limit a president's power to carry out the laws passed by Congress, keeping the separation of powers intact. By not ruling on the Reconstruction Act, the Court let stand the voting rights given to newly freed slaves. The ruling also helped define the executive's immunity from lawsuits designed to limit its political duties.
Before Mississippi v. Johnson, an acting president had never been named as an individual defendant in a case heard before the Supreme Court. But the case arose during a uniquely difficult time in American history. In the aftermath of the Civil War, the country was trying to heal itself and address the issues raised by the end of slavery. Collectively, the political programs implemented to restore order and rebuild the country were called Reconstruction.
In some ways, Reconstruction still pitted North against South, though now thebattle was fought with words and laws, not cannons, and the victorious Northheld the clear advantage. Following the lead of Abraham Lincoln, President Andrew Johnson tried to make Reconstruction a conciliatory process. But by 1867, a faction in Congress known as the Radical Republicans had taken control of Reconstruction. Many of these Republicans had been strong abolitionists before the war. Now, their primary concern was asserting control over the beatenConfederacy and establishing the rights of the South's newly freed slaves.
The Reconstruction Act of 1867 was one of the Radical Republicans first majorlegislative programs. The act divided the old Confederacy into five regions,each ruled by a military governor, with military courts to hear civil matters. As a condition for reentering the Union, the Southern states were also required under the act to draft new constitutions that gave African Americans the right to vote. (The law, however, did not extend that right to Northern blacks.)
The Reconstruction Act threw the South into an uproar. Within a month of thebill's passage, the state of Mississippi charged the act was blatantly unconstitutional. The state asked the Supreme Court to impose a permanent injunction preventing President Johnson and the area's military governor, Edward O. C.Ord, from executing the law.
The Case Against Johnson and the Reconstruction Act
In their motion to the Court, attorneys W. L Sharkey and R. J. Walker attacked the bill's intent. "It annuls and abrogates the state government and stateconstitutions, and substitutes a mere military power." The federal governmenthad already gotten into constitutional trouble using military authority in civil matters. In 1866, the Court ruled in Ex Parte Milligan that the government could not declare martial law in areas outside a war zone that hadexisting civil governments and courts. Mississippi was no longer at war withthe federal government, and the state did have its own civil government in place.
Sharkey and Walker also asserted that the Supreme Court did have jurisdictionin this matter. "The Constitution is supreme; all officers are subordinate to the supreme law, and consequently subordinate to the command of the department [the Supreme Court] whose duty it is to enforce subordination by declaring the meaning, the extent, and the limitations of the Constitution."
Without mentioning it by name, the plaintiffs also brought up the precedent of Marbury v. Madison. In that famous 1803 decision, Chief Justice JohnMarshall had distinguished between a president's "ministerial" and "political" duties. The Court could compel the president to carry out a ministerial duty ordered by Congress. In this case, the plaintiffs argued, carrying out theReconstruction Act was ministerial, and so fell under the Court's jurisdiction.
The Court Says No
The Supreme Court denied the motion to consider the permanent injunction against the Reconstruction Act. The Court noted that bringing suit against a sitting president was unprecedented, and that was held against the plaintiffs. But the Court also relied on specific points of law in its decision.
Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Chase first looked at the issue of ministerial versus political duties. Executing the Reconstruction Act, he argued,was a political duty.
A ministerial duty . . . is one in respect to which nothing is open to discretion. It is a simple, definite duty, arisingunder conditions admitted or proved to exist, and imposed by law . . . Verydifferent is the duty of the President in the exercise of power to see that the laws are faithfully executed, and among these laws the acts named in the bill . . . he is required to assign generals to command in the several military districts, and to detail sufficient military force to enable such officersto discharge their duties under the law . . . The duty thus imposed on the President is in no sense just ministerial. It is purely executive and political.
The Court did not examine the constitutionality of the Reconstruction Act, remarking that even if it were unconstitutional, the Court could not prevent the president from executing it. The Constitution, the Court reasoned, requiresCongress to pass the laws, the president to execute them, and the Court to review them once they have been put into place. But the Court has no power toreview a law before it is executed. The Court kept the separation of powers intact.
After the decision in Mississippi, President Johnson did carry out theReconstruction Act. The Court again examined the law's constitutionality in1868, when the state of Georgia filed a similar suit. The Court let the Radical Republicans carry out their brand of Reconstruction.
In a judicial sense, Mississippi helped shape the notion of executiveimmunity. The president was now immune from suits that tried to prevent him from carrying out a law--if it fell under his political duties. Eventually, presidential immunity was expanded, in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982). In that case, the Court ruled the president was immune from personal liability lawsuits for acts he performed while in office.
Related Cases
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
- Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866).
- Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982).
Salmon Portland Chase
Salmon Portland Chase (1808-73), sixth chief justice of the Supreme Court, served on the Court at the height of the Reconstruction Era, from 1864 to 1873.He presided over pivotal cases such as Mississippi v. Johnson (1866),Ex Parte Milligan (1866), the Test-Oath Cases (1867), and theSlaughterhouse Cases (1873).
An opponent of slavery, Chase gained a reputation as a defender of runaway slaves in his Cincinnati law practice. He ran for the Senate with the Free-SoilParty in 1848 and became known as a leading anti-slavery senator, outspokenin his opposition to the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act. In 1855 Chase, who helpedform the Republican Party, became governor of Ohio. In 1860 Chase, then backin the Senate, sought the presidency. But when Abraham Lincoln emerged as theparty favorite, he accepted a position as secretary of the treasury. Chase ran against Lincoln in the 1864 elections, months after he resigned his Cabinet post. Lincoln nominated Chase as chief justice in 1864. Initially opposingthe radical Republicans and advocating a moderate approach toward the formerConfederacy, Chase upheld the powers of Congress and the principles of the Reconstruction in cases such as Texas v. White (1868).
Sources
West's Encyclopedia of American Law. St. Paul, MN: West Group, 1998.
User Comments Add a comment…