Morrison v. Olson

E722001

Morrison v. Olson is a 1988 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the independent counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act, clarifying limits on presidential removal power and separation of powers.

All labels observed (3)

How this entity was disambiguated

Statements (50)

Predicate Object
instanceOf United States Supreme Court case ⓘ
federal courts case ⓘ
areaOfLaw administrative law ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ
federal criminal procedure ⓘ
separation of powers ⓘ
arguedDate 1988-04-26 ⓘ
chiefJusticeAtDecision William H. Rehnquist ⓘ
citation 487 U.S. 654 ⓘ
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted Appointments Clause of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution ⓘ
linked to: Appointments Clause

Article II Take Care Clause ⓘ
Article III limitations on judicial power ⓘ
separation of powers doctrine ⓘ
court Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decidedIn October Term 1987 ⓘ
decisionDate 1988-06-29 ⓘ
defendant Theodore B. Olson ⓘ
linked to: Theodore Olson
dissentingOpinionBy Antonin Scalia ⓘ
dissentType solo dissent ⓘ
docketNumber 87-1279 ⓘ
fullName Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988) ⓘ
linked to: Morrison v. Olson
holding The Act does not impermissibly interfere with the President’s constitutional duty to ensure the faithful execution of the laws. ⓘ
The independent counsel is an inferior officer whose appointment by a special court is consistent with the Appointments Clause. ⓘ
The independent counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act do not violate the separation of powers principle. ⓘ
The restrictions on the Attorney General’s power to remove an independent counsel for cause are constitutional. ⓘ
impact became a leading precedent on limits of presidential removal power ⓘ
frequently cited in later debates over the unitary executive theory ⓘ
upheld the constitutionality of the independent counsel mechanism until its later expiration and replacement by other special counsel regulations ⓘ
issue constitutionality of the independent counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 ⓘ
joinedMajority Antonin Scalia ⓘ
Byron R. White ⓘ
Harry A. Blackmun ⓘ
John Paul Stevens ⓘ
Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ
Thurgood Marshall ⓘ
William J. Brennan Jr. ⓘ
keyConcept for-cause removal protection ⓘ
independent counsel ⓘ
inferior officer ⓘ
principal officer ⓘ
special division of the D.C. Circuit ⓘ
lowerCourtCitation 838 F.2d 1345 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ⓘ
lowerCourtDisposition affirmed in part and reversed in part ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy William H. Rehnquist ⓘ
notableFeature Justice Scalia’s dissent argued that the decision undermined the unitary executive and would be viewed as a constitutional mistake. ⓘ
originatingCourt United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ⓘ
plaintiff Alexia Morrison ⓘ
statuteInterpreted Ethics in Government Act of 1978 ⓘ
statuteSectionInterpreted Title VI of the Ethics in Government Act (independent counsel provisions) ⓘ
vote 7-1 decision ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (7)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Laurence Silberman → notableCase → Morrison v. Olson (D.C. Circuit phase) ⓘ
subject linked to: Judge Laurence Silberman
linked to: Morrison v. Olson
Bowsher v. Synar → isRelatedCase → Morrison v. Olson ⓘ
Appointments Clause → citedInCase → Morrison v. Olson ⓘ
Morrison v. Olson → fullName → Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988) ⓘ
linked to: Morrison v. Olson