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, allowing Congress to create independent counsels to investigate and prosecute government officials for misconduct. This case highlighted the ongoing tensions between the executive and legislative branches regarding oversight and accountability, ultimately shaping the balance of power in the federal government.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The case arose when the independent counsel, appointed under the Ethics in Government Act, sought to investigate former White House aide Theodore Olson.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that the independent counsel did not violate the Appointments Clause of the Constitution because they were not considered 'officers of the United States.'
3. Morrison v. Olson reinforced Congress's authority to oversee and investigate executive branch activities through independent counsels.
4. The decision was contentious, with Justice Antonin Scalia dissenting, arguing that it undermined the powers of the presidency and violated separation of powers principles.
5. Although upheld by the Supreme Court, the independent counsel law was allowed to expire in 1999 due to concerns over its effectiveness and potential for abuse.

Review Questions

• How did Morrison v. Olson impact the relationship between Congress and the executive branch?
  • Morrison v. Olson significantly impacted the relationship between Congress and the executive branch by affirming Congress's ability to establish independent counsels. This ruling allowed Congress to hold executive officials accountable without direct interference from the president, highlighting tensions over oversight and power dynamics. The case set a precedent for how Congress could exercise its investigatory powers over the executive branch, emphasizing checks and balances.
• What were some key arguments presented by Justice Scalia in his dissenting opinion in Morrison v. Olson?
  • In his dissenting opinion in Morrison v. Olson, Justice Scalia argued that the creation of an independent counsel infringed upon presidential powers by effectively placing an investigator outside presidential control. He emphasized that this arrangement violated the separation of powers principle, as it allowed Congress to wield significant influence over executive functions. Scalia contended that such an unchecked authority could lead to political motivations behind investigations, undermining the integrity of executive governance.
• Evaluate how Morrison v. Olson reflects broader themes of accountability and power within the U.S. government structure.
  • Morrison v. Olson reflects broader themes of accountability and power by illustrating how mechanisms like independent counsels can be employed to ensure government officials are held responsible for misconduct. The ruling underscores ongoing debates about the limits of executive power and congressional oversight. Additionally, it highlights concerns about maintaining a balance between allowing effective governance while preventing abuses of power, showcasing how these themes are pivotal in shaping U.S. constitutional law and governmental practices.

Related terms

Independent Counsel: A special prosecutor appointed to investigate and prosecute specific cases of misconduct involving government officials, designed to operate independently from the executive branch.

Separation of Powers:

The principle of dividing governmental powers among different branches (executive, legislative, and judicial) to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful.

Impeachment: The process by which a legislative body formally charges a government official with misconduct, which can lead to removal from office if convicted.