Powell v. McCormack

This article **needs more citations **. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources . Unsourced material may be challenged and removed .
Find sources: "Powell v. McCormack"  – news  · newspapers  · books  · scholar  · JSTOR (May 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this message )

Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969), is a United States Supreme Court case that held that the Qualifications of Members Clause of Article I of the US Constitution is an exclusive list of qualifications of members of the House of Representatives , which may exclude a duly elected member for only those reasons enumerated in that clause.

Contents

• 1 Background

• 2 Constitutional issues

• 3 Decision

  • 3.1 Warren's majority opinion

  • 3.2 Douglas's concurring opinion

  • 3.3 Stewart's dissenting opinion

• 4 See also

• 5 Notes

• 6 References

• 7 External links

Background

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Powell_v._McCormack&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")

Adam Clayton Powell Jr. , a senior member of the United States House of Representatives , was embroiled in scandal, specifically around allegations that he had refused to pay a judgment ordered by a New York court, misappropriated congressional travel funds, and paid his wife a congressional staff salary for work she had not done.

Powell was re-elected in the 1966 election . When the 90th Congress convened in January 1967, Speaker of the House John W. McCormack asked Representative Powell to abstain from taking the oath of office . The House adopted H.Res. 1, which stripped Powell of his House Committee chairmanship, excluded him from taking his seat, and created a select committee to investigate Powell's misdeeds. After the select committee conducted its investigation and hearings, in March 1967, the House adopted H.Res. 278 by a vote of 307 to 116, which excluded Powell from Congress and also censured him, fined him $25,000, took away his seniority, and declared his seat vacant.

Powell, along with 13 of his constituents, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia , naming McCormack and five other representatives as defendants . He also named the Clerk of the House, the Sergeant at Arms, and the Doorkeeper. Most of these parties were named in an effort to get injunctions barring the enforcement of H. Res. 278:

• To prevent the Speaker from refusing to administer the oath of office
• To prevent the Clerk from "refusing to perform the duties due a Representative"
• To prevent the Sergeant at Arms from withholding Powell's salary
• To prevent the Doorkeeper from barring Powell from Congressional chambers

The suit claimed that excluding Powell amounted to an expulsion, but an expulsion would not have garnered the necessary two-thirds vote.

The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction . The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the district court. In an opinion by Warren E. Burger , soon to be Chief Justice of the United States , the court held that the federal courts did have subject-matter jurisdiction, but dismissed the case on two grounds: that Powell lacked standing to sue, and that the case represented a non-justiciable political question .

While the suit was making its way through the court system, Powell was re-elected in the 1968 election and was ultimately re-seated in the 91st Congress . The House adopted H.Res. 2, fining him $25,000 and removing his seniority.

Because he was seated when his appeal came to the Supreme Court, the defendants argued that the case was moot .

In the aftermath of the decision, Congress passed the Federal Contested Elections Act to formalize the process for contesting elections in light of the Court ruling.

Constitutional issues

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Powell_v._McCormack&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Constitutional issues")

• Congressional power to develop qualifications other than those specified (Art. I, § 2, cl. 1–2)
• Congressional power to exclude rather than impeach or expel (Art. I, § 2, cl. 5; Art. I, § 5, cl. 2)
• Judicial review vs. Congressional power to be the judge of its qualifications (Art. I, § 5, cl. 1)
• Supreme Court jurisdiction and justiciability (Art. III)
• Rights of the electorate to elect its representative

Decision

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Powell_v._McCormack&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Decision")

Warren's majority opinion

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Powell_v._McCormack&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: Warren's majority opinion")

The majority opinion was authored by Chief Justice Warren , and signed by Black , Brennan , Douglas , Harlan , Marshall , and White .

The opinion stated that the case was justiciable, and it did not constitute a political question that pitted one branch of government against another. Rather, it required "no more than an interpretation of the Constitution."

The opinion stated also that Congress being the sole judge of its members' qualifications (Art. I, § 5, cl. 1) and the Speech or Debate Clause (Art. I, § 6) do not preclude judicial review of Constitutional issues raised in the

…