Cases - 1924 term

Myers v. United States

Mon, 13 Apr 1925 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

Docket No.

Petitioner

Myers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Taft Court (1925-1930)

Decided By

Taft Court (1925-1930)

Opinion

272 U.S. 52 (1926)

Argued

Monday, April 13, 1925

Decided

Monday, October 25, 1926

Facts of the Case

An 1876 law provided that postmasters of the first, second, and third classes shall be appointed and may be removed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. President Woodrow Wilson removed Myers, a postmaster first class, without seeking Senate approval.

Question

Did the Act unconstitutionally restrict the President's power to remove appointed officials?

Conclusion

Yes. After tracing legislative debate of the First Congress in 1789 which dealt with the interpretation of the President's appointment power, Chief Justice Taft concluded that the power to remove appointed officers is vested in the President alone. According to Taft, to deny the President that power would not allow him to "discharge his own constitutional duty of seeing that the laws be faithfully executed."

McGrain v. Daugherty

Fri, 05 Dec 1924 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Congress

Constitution and Delaware Street Washington D.C. 20002

Washington 20002

United States

38° 53' 31.1496" N, 77° 0' 29.1744" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

McGrain

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Daugherty

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Taft Court (1923-1925)

Decided By

Taft Court (1925-1930)

Opinion

273 U.S. 135 (1927)

Argued

Friday, December 5, 1924

Decided

Monday, January 17, 1927

Facts of the Case

This case was a challenge to Daugherty's contempt conviction. He failed to appear before a Senate committee investigating the failure of Daugherty's brother (Harry Daugherty, the former Attorney General)to prosecute wrongdoers in the Teapot Dome scandal.

Question

Was the Senate committee out-of-bounds in issuing its contempt order since the purpose of the investigation had nothing to do with the committee's legislative purpose?

Conclusion

The Court upheld Daugherty's contempt conviction, establishing a presumption that congressional investigations have a legislative purpose. This presumption was not overcome by showing that the committee also had another purpose, such as exposure of wrongdoing. This presumption would later restrict the Court's hand in clear cases of congressional overreaching while investigating communists after World War II.

Ex parte Grossman

Mon, 01 Dec 1924 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Saloon

800 West Madison Street Chicago IL 60661

Chicago, IL 60661

United States

41° 52' 55.146" N, 87° 38' 50.946" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Ex parte Grossman

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Taft Court (1923-1925)

Opinion

267 U.S. 87 (1925)

Argued

Monday, December 1, 1924

Decided

Monday, March 2, 1925

Facts of the Case

In 1920, legal action was taken against Philip Grossman for selling liquor at his place of business in violation of the National Prohibition Act. He violated a federal court injunction by continuing to sell alcoholic beverages. He was found guilty of criminal contempt of court and sentenced to one year in prison and a $1,000 fine. In 1923, President Calvin Coolidge issued a pardon that reduced Grossman's sentence to payment of the fine.

Question

Did the president have the constitutional authority to commute a sentence for criminal contempt of court?

Conclusion

In a unanimous decision, the Court found that a presidential pardon for a criminal contempt of court sentence was within the powers of the executive. There is nothing in the words "offenses against the United States" that excludes criminal contempts in the Constitution. Actions that violate the dignity or authority of the federal courts violate the law of the United States, making these contempts offenses against the United States. The president's pardon authority includes such offenses. Without destroying the deterrent effect of judicial punishment, the president's powers are to act as checks against undue prejudice or needless severity in such sentencing by the judicial branch.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters

Mon, 16 Mar 1925 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Congress

Constitution and Delaware Street Washington D.C. 20002

Washington 20002

United States

38° 53' 31.1496" N, 77° 0' 29.1744" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

583

Petitioner

Pierce

Respondent

Society of Sisters

Heard By

Taft Court (1925-1930)

Decided By

Taft Court (1925-1930)

Opinion

268 U.S. 510 (1925)

Argued

Monday, March 16, 1925

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1925

Facts of the Case

The Compulsory Education Act of 1922 required parents or guardians to send children between the ages of eight and sixteen to public school in the district where the children resided. The Society of Sisters was an Oregon corporation which facilitated care for orphans, educated youths, and established and maintained academies or schools. This case was decided together with Pierce v. Hill Military Academy.

Question

Did the Act violate the liberty of parents to direct the education of their children?

Conclusion

Yes. The unanimous Court held that "the fundamental liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only."