Morrison v. Olson

Definition

Morrison v. Olson is a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1988 that upheld the constitutionality of the independent counsel provision of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. This case is significant as it addresses the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches, particularly concerning the appointment and removal of officials who operate independently of presidential control.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The Supreme Court ruled 7-1 in favor of Olson, determining that the independent counsel did not violate the separation of powers doctrine.
2. The decision emphasized that Congress had the authority to create offices that operate independently from the executive branch, as long as it did not interfere with executive functions.
3. Justice Antonin Scalia dissented, arguing that the independent counsel's role undermined presidential power and accountability.
4. Morrison v. Olson set a precedent for future debates about the extent of executive power and the limits on presidential authority regarding appointments.
5. The independent counsel provision was ultimately allowed to expire in 1999, raising discussions about its effectiveness and implications for government oversight.

Review Questions

• How did Morrison v. Olson clarify the relationship between Congress and the executive branch regarding independent counsels?
  • Morrison v. Olson clarified that Congress has the constitutional authority to establish independent counsels to investigate executive branch misconduct without direct presidential control. The Supreme Court upheld this arrangement, stating it did not violate separation of powers because it allowed for oversight while still respecting executive functions. This case affirmed that such independent investigations could be necessary to maintain accountability within government.
• Evaluate the impact of the Morrison v. Olson decision on future interpretations of executive power within the U.S. government.
  • The Morrison v. Olson decision significantly impacted future interpretations of executive power by reinforcing the idea that Congress can create independent entities to hold the executive accountable. This ruling opened doors for legislative checks on presidential authority, affecting how subsequent administrations have operated regarding investigations into their actions. It raised critical questions about how much control a president should have over appointments that might challenge their authority.
• Synthesize the implications of Morrison v. Olson with contemporary issues surrounding presidential investigations and oversight in modern governance.
  • The implications of Morrison v. Olson resonate in contemporary discussions about presidential investigations and government oversight. As seen in recent events involving various administrations, questions about independence and accountability remain central to political discourse. The ruling supports the notion that independent investigations can enhance governmental transparency while posing challenges to presidential authority. This ongoing tension reflects a continuing struggle within American governance over how to balance effective oversight with preserving executive power.

Related terms

Independent Counsel: A lawyer appointed to investigate and prosecute government officials for misconduct, operating independently from the executive branch to ensure impartiality.

Separation of Powers: The principle that divides government responsibilities into distinct branches—executive, legislative, and judicial—to prevent any one branch from gaining too much power.

Executive Privilege: The right of the president and other high-level executive branch officials to keep certain communications confidential, especially if disclosure would disrupt the functioning of government.