Mississippi v. Johnson
Significance, The Case Against Johnson And The Reconstruction Act, The Court Says No, Salmon Portland Chase
State of Mississippi
Andrew Johnson, General Edward O. C. Ord
That the Supreme Court should prevent President Andrew Johnson from carrying out 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
Date of Decision
15 April 1867
Denied plaintiff's claim.
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
- Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866).
- Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982).
West's Encyclopedia of American Law. St. Paul, MN: West Group, 1998.
- Munn v. Illinois - Setting The Boundary Between State And Federal Regulation, Further Readings
- Minor v. Happersett - Significance, The "new Departure", A Constitutional Approach, All Or Nothing, The Fourteenth Amendment
- Mississippi v. Johnson - Significance
- Mississippi v. Johnson - Further Readings
- Mississippi v. Johnson - The Case Against Johnson And The Reconstruction Act
- Mississippi v. Johnson - The Court Says No
- Mississippi v. Johnson - Salmon Portland Chase
- Other Free Encyclopedias