Cummings v. Missouri

Thu, 15 Mar 1866 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Petitioner

Cummings

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Missouri

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Chase Court (1865-1867)

Decided By

Chase Court (1865-1867)

Opinion

71 U.S. 277 (1867)

Argued

Thursday, March 15, 1866

Decided

Monday, January 14, 1867

Facts of the Case

Following the Civil War, Congress and Missouri adopted provisions that required persons in specified professional occupations to take an oath that they have never given aid to the rebellion and secession. Missouri convicted a priest who refused to take the oath. A former Confederate congressman asked the Supreme Court for permission to practice without taking the federal oath.

Question

Do the state and national oaths violate prohibitions against ex post facto laws and bills of attainder of the Constitution?

Conclusion

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.

Mississippi v. Johnson

Fri, 12 Apr 1867 13:00:00 +0000

Location

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave Washington DC 20500

Washington, DC 20500

United States

38° 53' 51.7056" N, 77° 2' 11.4684" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Petitioner

Mississippi

Respondent

Johnson

Heard By

Chase Court (1865-1867)

Decided By

Chase Court (1865-1867)

Opinion

71 U.S. 475 (1867)

Argued

Friday, April 12, 1867

Decided

Monday, April 15, 1867

Facts of the Case

In 1867, Congress passed the Reconstruction Acts. Although President Andrew Johnson vetoed the Acts, Congress overrode the veto. In an attempt to delay or prevent Reconstruction, the state of Mississippi appealed directly to the Supreme Court. Mississippi asked the Court for an injunction preventing the President from enforcing the Acts on the ground that they were unconstitutional.

Question

Could the Supreme Court constitutionally issue an injunction directed against the President?

Conclusion

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.

Cases - 1866 term

Cummings v. Missouri

Mississippi v. Johnson

Location