Ex Parte United States
Citations
- 242 U.S. 27
- 37 S. Ct. 72
- 61 L. Ed. 129
- 1916 U.S. LEXIS 1527
Syllabus
<p>Mandamus, out of this court,-is a proper repedy for enforcing a crim- ■ inal sentence where the District Court which passed it has defeated its execution by an ultra wires order of suspension.</p> <p>The proceeding should be directed to the District Judge, with a view to the annulment of the order of suspension; npt to the clerk with a view to the issuance of a commitment in spite of it.-</p> <p>An accused person was duly sentenced in a District Court of the United States pursuant to an act of Congress, and the court then immediately made an order that execution of the sentence be suspended “during the good behavior of the defendant,”-the effect of which, if sustained, would have been to exempt him permanently and ab . solutely from the punishment provided by the act and reflected in the sentence. Held, that such a suspension — the legal equivalent of an absolute and permanent refusal to impose any sentence under the statute — was beyond the power of the court.</p> <p>The Constitution assigns to the legislature the power to enact laws defining crimes and fixing the degree and method of punishment; to the judiciary the power to try offenses under those laws and impose punishment within the limits and according to the methods therein provided; to thé executive the power to relieve from the punishment so fixed by law and so judicially ascertained and imposed.</p> <p>The power of Congress to fix punishment for crime includes the power, by probation or other suitable legislation, to equip the courts in advance with such latitude of discretion as will enable them to vary and control the application of punishment to suit the exigencies of each case, in accord with obvious considerations of humanity and public well-being;</p> <p>But the courts, albeit under the Constitution they are possessed inherently of a judicial, discretionary authority which is ample for the wise performance of their duties in the trying of offenses and imposing of penalties as the laws provide, ha
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that probation ordered by a judge without statutory authority violated separation of powers principles
- holding that probation ordered by a judge without statutory authority violated separation of powers principles
- holding that federal courts, absent Congressional authority, do not have the power to suspend a mandatory sentence
- recognizing that the authority to define crimes and prescribe punishment belongs exclusively to the legislature
- holding that imposition of punishment is a judicial function
- “[fjixing the terms and conditions of probation is a judicial act which may not be delegated”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Van Devanter
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
371 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Harmelin v. MichiganSupreme Court· 1991-06-27· cited 4,521×
- Mistretta v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1989-01-18· cited 2,457×
- Sorrells v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1932-12-19· cited 1,793×
- State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1964-04-20· cited 1,662×
- Chapman v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1991-05-30· cited 1,362×
- Affronti v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1955-12-05· cited 1,308×
- Will v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1967-11-13· cited 1,120×
- Fong Foo v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1962-03-19· cited 557×
- Erlinger v. United StatesSupreme Court· 2024-06-21· cited 403×
- State v. BeasleyOhio Supreme Court· 1984-12-12· cited 332×
- United States v. MurraySupreme Court· 1928-01-03· cited 228×
- Ex Parte United StatesSupreme Court· 1932-12-05· cited 219×
- State v. BloomerOhio Supreme Court· 2009-06-09· cited 203×
- Roberts v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1943-11-22· cited 199×
- State v. HigginsSupreme Court of Missouri· 1979-12-06· cited 191×
- United States v. Julio La Guardia, United States of America v. Eredia Josefa Jimenez-MinallaFirst Circuit· 1990-04-25· cited 175×
- United States v. SolteroNinth Circuit· 2007-12-12· cited 172×
- Korematsu v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1943-06-01· cited 170×
- Schick v. ReedSupreme Court· 1974-12-23· cited 165×
- United States of America, Appellant/cross No. 88-3268 v. Alan Frank, A/K/A A. Roy, Appellee/cross No. 88-3220Third Circuit· 1989-01-04· cited 165×
Cites
36 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Commonwealth v. John Dowdican's BailMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1874-05-19· cited 89×
- LIFE AND FIRE INS. COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. Wilson's HeirsSupreme Court· 1834-02-18· cited 87×
- Neal v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia· 1898-05-24· cited 78×
- People ex rel. Boenert v. BarrettIllinois Supreme Court· 1903-04-24· cited 62×
- Ex Parte Metropolitan Water Co. of West VirginiaSupreme Court· 1911-05-15· cited 59×
- People ex rel. Smith v. AllenIllinois Supreme Court· 1895-01-14· cited 53×
- Commonwealth v. MaloneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1887-10-21· cited 41×
- Miller v. EvansSupreme Court of Iowa· 1901-12-18· cited 37×
- People v. KennedyMichigan Supreme Court· 1885-11-04· cited 37×
- In re FlintUtah Supreme Court· 1903-02-13· cited 37×
- Ex parte BuggMissouri Court of Appeals· 1912-04-01· cited 32×
- State ex rel. Dawson v. SappSupreme Court of Kansas· 1912-07-06· cited 31×
- Spencer v. StateTennessee Supreme Court· 1911-09-15· cited 28×
- Gray v. StateIndiana Supreme Court· 1886-06-23· cited 26×
- In re PetersonIdaho Supreme Court· 1911-02-25· cited 25×
- State v. DaltonTennessee Supreme Court· 1902-12-15· cited 25×
- State v. HockettMissouri Court of Appeals· 1908-03-02· cited 24×
- In re BeckSupreme Court of Kansas· 1901-05-11· cited 22×
- People v. BlackburnUtah Supreme Court· 1890-01-15· cited 22×
- Tuttle v. LangSupreme Judicial Court of Maine· 1905-03-31· cited 21×
Other cases named Ex Parte United States
12 other CourtListener records share this case name.
- Ex Parte United StatesSupreme Court· 1932-12-05· cited 219×
- Ex Parte United StatesSeventh Circuit· 1939-02-15· cited 29×
- Ex Parte United StatesSupreme Court· 1913-01-06· cited 28×
- Ex Parte United StatesSupreme Court· 1923-12-10· cited 19×
- Ex parte United StatesSupreme Court· 1943-06-07· cited 2×
- Ex parte United StatesSupreme Court· 1943-06-07· cited 2×
- Ex parte United StatesSupreme Court· 1920-03-01· cited 1×
- Ex parte United StatesE.D. Arkansas· 1939-01-25
- Ex parte United StatesSupreme Court· 1918-04-15
- Ex parte United StatesSupreme Court· 1929-12-02
- Ex parte United StatesSupreme Court· 1932-05-23
- Ex parte United StatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island· 1812-11-15
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.