http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1866/ U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en-us <p>Do the state and national oaths violate prohibitions against ex post facto laws and bills of attainder of the Constitution?</p><p>Field, writing for a divided Court, held that both state and national oath laws were unconstitutional. The oath laws transformed acts that had not been forbidden into crimes and increased the punishment of acts that were known to be crimes. The oath laws were also bills of attainder since they were legislative acts that inflicted punishment without the benefit of a trial by a judge.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1866/1866_0/ <p>Could the Supreme Court constitutionally issue an injunction directed against the President?</p><p>In a unanimous decision, the Court held that it had "no jurisdiction of a bill to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties...." The Court held that the duties of the President as required by the Reconstruction Acts were "in no sense ministerial," and that a judicial attempt to interfere with the performance of such duties would be "an absurd and excessive extravagance." The Court noted that if the President chose to ignore the injunction, the judiciary would be unable to enforce the order.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1866/1866_2/