Megan James

Powell v. McCormack

395 U.S. 486 (1969)

FACTS

A Congressman was denied his chair position during the 90th Congress due to the United States House of Representation’s refusal of the chair position to the Congressman. The Congressman was denied his 90th Congress chair position because of alleged filed deceptive travel expenses as well as illegal payments made to the Congressman’s wife. The lower court case decision decided that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction on the matter of Separation of Powers found in the Constitution and dismissed the claims. The court lacked jurisdiction because the court decided the Federal Judiciary could not interfere within the House of Representatives (legislature branch). This would dismantle the separation of powers between the two branches of government.

ISSUES

1. Does the United States House of Representatives have the authority to deny a qualified Congressman a membership in accordance with the United States Constitution Articles I and II?

2. Does the Speech and Debate Clause of the United States Constitution prevent the petitioner from being questioned and punished in a Federal Court?

HOLDING

The Court held that the United States House of Representatives unconstitutionally excluded the petitioner from taking his seat in the 90th Congress because the petitioner met all the qualified requirements held in the Constitution. The Court decided that due to the Speech and Debate Clause found in the Constitution, the petitioner was immune from suit. Also, the Court held that the United States House of Representatives do not have authority to deny membership to any person duly elected by his constituents.

REASONING

The Court’s decision to declare the House of Representatives seat refusal unconstitutional comes from a few principles. The first principle is found in the Constitution under Articles I and II. They discuss the qualifications one must meet in order to take a seat in Congress. Such qualifications relate around the basis of how the election process works and the general set-up of the Legislative and Presidency branches. The Congressman did in fact meet all the necessary requirements that would qualify him for his seat in Congress. The House of Representatives has the qualifying requirements and cannot punish a member who has qualified. The Congressman took part in an act that was not defined or mentioned in the qualifications, therefore there is nothing that can be done.

1

Megan James

The Court’s second decision for declaring this unconstitutional comes from the Speech and Debate Clause (United States Constitution Article I Section 6, Clause I) states essentially that Congressman are immune from law suits in Federal Courts. Because of this clause, the Court can decide that when the House of Representatives originally brought the case to the lower level court, the Congressman was immune from the allegations. The Court found that they did in fact have jurisdiction because the case does arise under the questions of the Federal Constitution, whether the Speech and Debate Clause is in effect as well as whether Articles I and II were adequately met.

Concurring Opinion: Justice Douglas joined the concurring opinion stating how significant it was that the House of Representative not exclude on the basis outside the stated qualifications.

Dissenting Opinion: Justice Stewart dissented the decision on the grounds the case should be considered moot and be dismissed. He also believed the petitioner had an adequate amount of money to pay back the back pay he owed, making this insignificant.

IMPORTANCE

The importance of Powell v. McCormack frames around the idea of fairness in the Legislative Branch. The United States government relies heavily on elections and the election process and this is an example of the Court getting involved in another branch of government. I believe this case was significant in showing the House of Representatives the limits its power has. Even though the law states the House can vote out a Congressman with a 2/3 majority vote, in this particular instance the rules became altered. This case shows a Congressman acting inappropriately with funds but according to the Constitution, the Congressman cannot be punished. The case shows the need for corruption free government, but also emphasizes the importance of elections and the election process.

2