Petitioner
Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.
Respondent
John McCormack
Petitioner's Claim
That the House of Representatives had no constitutional right to exclude Powell, a member who met all constitutional requirements for office.
Chief Lawyers for Petitioner
Arthur Kinoy, Herbert O. Reid
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Bruce Bromley
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, William J. Brennan, Jr., William O. Douglas, Abe Fortas, John Marshall Harlan II, Thurgood Marshall, Earl Warren (writing for the Court), Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
Potter Stewart
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
16 June 1969
Decision
Powell could not be excluded from the House by majority vote, because he metthe qualifications of age, citizenship, and residence set down in the Constitution.
Significance
Powell v. McCormack settled many long-standing questions about the constitutional status of membership in Congress.
Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution sets out the qualifications fora member of Congress. It states that a House member must be at least 25 years old, a U.S. citizen for at least seven years, and a resident of a districtfrom which he or she was elected. The House can, however, expel a member forconduct "inconsistent with the trust and duty of a member," on a two-thirds vote. This case hinges on an attempt by the House to exclude, rather than expel, a duly elected member.
Adam Clayton Powell, an African American congressman from New York, had beenduly elected to serve in the 90th Congress. However, he was denied his seat when a majority of the House of Representatives voted to exclude him. The House's action followed charges that Powell had misappropriated public funds andabused the process of the New York courts. Powell and a group of his constituents filed suit in the district court against Speaker of the House John McCormack and other House officials, alleging that the resolution to exclude him violated his constitutional right to serve so long as he met the specified age, citizenship, and residence requirements. Powell, who was subsequently re-elected to his seat in a special election, sought back pay along with recompense for other damages.
The Court Rulings
The district court dismissed Powell's complaint on the grounds that it had nojurisdiction to rule on the matter. The court of appeals affirmed this decision. It cited lack of jurisdiction as well, adding that the case was moot because the 90th congressional session had come and gone. It also affirmed the right of Congress to expel its members. Despite rulings by two lower courts inMcCormack's favor, the Supreme Court agreed to review the case. On 16 June 1969 the Supreme Court issued its decision. By a vote of 8-1, it ruled in Powell's favor. In doing so, the Court had to address several thorny issues.
Moot Point
Disagreeing with the court of appeals ruling, the Supreme Court decided thatPowell's case was not moot because Powell's back pay was still at issue:
Next, the Court had to address the issue of whether it had the right to intervene in what seemed to be an internal House of Representatives issue. The Court resolved this potential violation of the separation of powers by holding that, while Congress has the sole authority to judge the qualifications of itsmembers, it may not add to the qualifications of age, citizenship, and residency spelled out in the Constitution:
Making a Distinction
The Court also addressed the distinction between exclusion--which the House voted on in this case--and expulsion, which the House can only put into effectby a two thirds vote. The Court concluded that, while the House did in factvote to exclude Powell by more than a two-thirds margin, this may not have been the result had the House members been voting to expel. The majority opinion dismissed the respondent's attempt to equate the two terms:
Powell v. McCormack was about more than Adam Clayton Powell's right tooccupy a congressional seat or receive his back pay. It was also about whenthe Supreme Court possesses the right to rule on issues of congressional qualification, and it gave the Court the opportunity to establish guidelines on what is a "political question" that federal courts cannot rule on because of separation of power grounds. It was one of the last decisions written by the legendary Chief Justice Warren.
Related Cases
The Right to Run for Public Office
Strictly speaking, there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to run for public office. The Constitution sets guidelines for presidential and congressional candidates concerning age, citizenship, and residency. It would be hardto make a case for the idea that the Constitution forbids that right to any duly qualified citizen, particularly inasmuch as the Tenth Amendment reservesall unenumerated rights for the states or the people. States and local districts may set their own qualifications, but unless these are closely aligned with those in the Constitution governing candidacies for high national office,such laws would be ripe for a Fourteenth Amendment challenge. The right to run for public office is common to constitutional democracies such as the United States and Britain. The two fundamental features of free elections are a secret ballot and the right of individuals to run for public office.
Sources
Scruton, Roger. A Dictionary of Political Thought, second edition. London: Macmillan, 1996.
Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.
Respondent
John McCormack
Petitioner's Claim
That the House of Representatives had no constitutional right to exclude Powell, a member who met all constitutional requirements for office.
Chief Lawyers for Petitioner
Arthur Kinoy, Herbert O. Reid
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Bruce Bromley
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, William J. Brennan, Jr., William O. Douglas, Abe Fortas, John Marshall Harlan II, Thurgood Marshall, Earl Warren (writing for the Court), Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
Potter Stewart
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
16 June 1969
Decision
Powell could not be excluded from the House by majority vote, because he metthe qualifications of age, citizenship, and residence set down in the Constitution.
Significance
Powell v. McCormack settled many long-standing questions about the constitutional status of membership in Congress.
Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution sets out the qualifications fora member of Congress. It states that a House member must be at least 25 years old, a U.S. citizen for at least seven years, and a resident of a districtfrom which he or she was elected. The House can, however, expel a member forconduct "inconsistent with the trust and duty of a member," on a two-thirds vote. This case hinges on an attempt by the House to exclude, rather than expel, a duly elected member.
Adam Clayton Powell, an African American congressman from New York, had beenduly elected to serve in the 90th Congress. However, he was denied his seat when a majority of the House of Representatives voted to exclude him. The House's action followed charges that Powell had misappropriated public funds andabused the process of the New York courts. Powell and a group of his constituents filed suit in the district court against Speaker of the House John McCormack and other House officials, alleging that the resolution to exclude him violated his constitutional right to serve so long as he met the specified age, citizenship, and residence requirements. Powell, who was subsequently re-elected to his seat in a special election, sought back pay along with recompense for other damages.
The Court Rulings
The district court dismissed Powell's complaint on the grounds that it had nojurisdiction to rule on the matter. The court of appeals affirmed this decision. It cited lack of jurisdiction as well, adding that the case was moot because the 90th congressional session had come and gone. It also affirmed the right of Congress to expel its members. Despite rulings by two lower courts inMcCormack's favor, the Supreme Court agreed to review the case. On 16 June 1969 the Supreme Court issued its decision. By a vote of 8-1, it ruled in Powell's favor. In doing so, the Court had to address several thorny issues.
Moot Point
Disagreeing with the court of appeals ruling, the Supreme Court decided thatPowell's case was not moot because Powell's back pay was still at issue:
Simply stated, a case is moot when the issues presented are no longer"live" or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome . .. Petitioner Powell has not been paid his salary by virtue of an allegedly unconstitutional House resolution. That claim is still unresolved and hotly contested by clearly adverse parties.
Next, the Court had to address the issue of whether it had the right to intervene in what seemed to be an internal House of Representatives issue. The Court resolved this potential violation of the separation of powers by holding that, while Congress has the sole authority to judge the qualifications of itsmembers, it may not add to the qualifications of age, citizenship, and residency spelled out in the Constitution:
Our examination of the relevant historical materials leads us to the conclusion that petitioners are correct and that the Constitution leaves the House without authority to exclude any person, duly elected by his constituents, who meets all the requirements for membership expressly prescribed in the Constitution.
Making a Distinction
The Court also addressed the distinction between exclusion--which the House voted on in this case--and expulsion, which the House can only put into effectby a two thirds vote. The Court concluded that, while the House did in factvote to exclude Powell by more than a two-thirds margin, this may not have been the result had the House members been voting to expel. The majority opinion dismissed the respondent's attempt to equate the two terms:
Although respondents repeatedly urge this Court not to speculate as to the reasons for Powell's exclusion, their attempt to equate exclusion with expulsion would require a similar speculation that the House would have voted to expel Powell had it been faced with that question . . . [T]he proceedings which culminated in Powell's exclusion cast considerable doubt upon respondents' assumption that the two-thirds vote necessary to expel would have been mustered.
Powell v. McCormack was about more than Adam Clayton Powell's right tooccupy a congressional seat or receive his back pay. It was also about whenthe Supreme Court possesses the right to rule on issues of congressional qualification, and it gave the Court the opportunity to establish guidelines on what is a "political question" that federal courts cannot rule on because of separation of power grounds. It was one of the last decisions written by the legendary Chief Justice Warren.
Related Cases
- Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1881).
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).
- Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116 (1966).
The Right to Run for Public Office
Strictly speaking, there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to run for public office. The Constitution sets guidelines for presidential and congressional candidates concerning age, citizenship, and residency. It would be hardto make a case for the idea that the Constitution forbids that right to any duly qualified citizen, particularly inasmuch as the Tenth Amendment reservesall unenumerated rights for the states or the people. States and local districts may set their own qualifications, but unless these are closely aligned with those in the Constitution governing candidacies for high national office,such laws would be ripe for a Fourteenth Amendment challenge. The right to run for public office is common to constitutional democracies such as the United States and Britain. The two fundamental features of free elections are a secret ballot and the right of individuals to run for public office.
Sources
Scruton, Roger. A Dictionary of Political Thought, second edition. London: Macmillan, 1996.
User Comments Add a comment…