Morrison v. Olson

Definition

Morrison v. Olson was a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1988 that upheld the constitutionality of the independent counsel statute, which allowed for the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate and prosecute government officials for misconduct. This case illustrates the ongoing debate between originalism and the living Constitution, as it touches on the interpretation of separation of powers and the scope of executive authority.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The case arose from a conflict involving a congressional investigation into the actions of a former official, leading to questions about whether an independent counsel could investigate executive branch officials.
2. The Supreme Court ruled 7-1 in favor of Olson, finding that the independent counsel did not violate the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.
3. Justice Antonin Scalia dissented, arguing that the independent counsel's lack of accountability to the executive branch undermined presidential power and violated the separation of powers.
4. The ruling reinforced the ability of Congress to establish mechanisms for accountability within the executive branch while balancing the need for independence in investigations.
5. Morrison v. Olson is often cited in discussions about executive authority and has implications for how governmental accountability is maintained.

Review Questions

• How did Morrison v. Olson impact the relationship between the executive branch and congressional oversight?
  • Morrison v. Olson had a significant impact on the relationship between the executive branch and congressional oversight by affirming Congress's authority to create an independent counsel to investigate executive actions. This ruling suggested that Congress could impose checks on presidential power through independent investigations, thereby enhancing accountability. The decision indicated a delicate balance where both branches must respect each other's roles while maintaining governmental integrity.
• Analyze the dissenting opinion in Morrison v. Olson and its implications for originalism in constitutional interpretation.
  • Justice Scalia's dissent in Morrison v. Olson emphasized a strict adherence to originalism, arguing that the independent counsel's authority threatened the foundational principle of separation of powers. He believed that allowing Congress to appoint an independent investigator undermined executive authority and contradicted what the framers intended regarding accountability. This dissent highlights how originalist interpretations can lead to differing views on modern governance, particularly regarding checks and balances within government structures.
• Evaluate how Morrison v. Olson has influenced subsequent cases or discussions related to executive power and accountability in government.
  • Morrison v. Olson continues to influence legal discussions around executive power and accountability, often referenced in debates about presidential investigations and oversight mechanisms. Its affirmation of independent counsels set a precedent for future cases where governmental accountability is questioned, impacting how both Congress and courts view their roles in scrutinizing executive actions. The ruling's implications extend into contemporary issues regarding executive privilege and limits on presidential power, showcasing its lasting relevance in shaping constitutional interpretation and governance.

Related terms

Independent Counsel: A special prosecutor appointed to investigate specific allegations against government officials, ensuring that investigations are conducted without political interference.

Separation of Powers: A fundamental principle in which the government's powers are divided among different branches (executive, legislative, judicial) to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful.

Originalism: A method of constitutional interpretation that seeks to understand the text of the Constitution as it was originally intended by its framers.