Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Powell Vs. Mccormack

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 16, 1969

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

61 entries 8 linked 53 unlinked
Show
  1. Dombrowski Vs. Eastland US Supreme Court · May 15, 1967
  2. Bell Vs. Hood US Supreme Court · Apr 01, 1946
  3. Baker Vs. Carr US Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1962
  4. Tenney Vs. Brandhove US Supreme Court · May 21, 1951
  5. Kilbourn Vs. Thompson US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1880
  6. Alejandrino Vs. Quezon US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1926
  7. Bond Vs. Floyd US Supreme Court · Dec 05, 1966
  8. Golden Vs. Zwickler US Supreme Court · Mar 04, 1969
  9. U.S. 486 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court Powell v. McCormack
    Search
  10. U.S. 486 (1969) Powell v. McCormack
    Search
  11. issue. Pp. 395 U. S. 495 -500. (a) Powell's averments as to declaratory relief are sufficient. Alejandrino v. Quezon
    Search
  12. does not affect the viability of his back salary claim with respect to the term for which he was excluded. Bond v. Floyd
    Search
  13. action against the other respondents, who are legislative employees charged with unconstitutional activity, Kilbourn v. Thompson
    Search
  14. Circuit affirmed on somewhat different grounds, with each judge of the panel filing a separate opinion. Powell v. McCormack
    Search
  15. the remaining live issues supply the constitutional requirement of a case or controversy. See United Public Workers v. Mitchell
    Search
  16. ed.1966). Despite Powell's obvious and continuing interest in his withheld salary, respondents insist that Alejandrino v. Quezon
    Search
  17. may grant declaratory relief even though it chooses not to issue an injunction or mandamus. See United Public Workers v. Mitchell
    Search
  18. United States v. California
    Search
  19. Vermont Structural Slate Co. v. Tatko
    Search
  20. United States Lines Co. v. Shaughnessy
    Search
  21. Powell in the 90th Congress, rendering his presumably secondary claims not worthy of judicial consideration. Bond v. Floyd
    Search
  22. is an absolute bar to petitioners' action. This Court has on four prior occasions -- Dombrowski v. Eastland
    Search
  23. United States v. Johnson
    Search
  24. U. S. 367 (1951), and Kilbourn v. Thompson
    Search
  25. Drawing upon this history, we concluded in United States v. Johnson
    Search
  26. U. S. 503 defense on the merits, but also protects a legislator from the burden of defending himself. Dombrowski v. Eastland
    Search
  27. Tenney v. Brandhove
    Search
  28. without fear that they will be later called to task in the courts for that representation. Thus, in Tenney v. Brandhove
    Search
  29. bar all judicial review of legislative acts. That issue was settled by implication as early as 1803, See Marbury v. Madison
    Search
  30. Cranch 137, and expressly in Kilbourn v. Thompson
    Search
  31. the warrant for Kilbourn's arrest. The Court first articulated in Kilbourn and followed in Dombrowski v. Eastland
    Search
  32. House manifested an intent to exclude Powell, its action should be tested by whatever standards may govern an expulsion. v. SUBJECT
    Search
  33. MATTER JURISDICTION As we pointed out in Baker v. Carr
    Search
  34. U. S. infra we disagree with the Court of Appeals' conclusion that this case is not justiciable. In Baker v. Carr
    Search
  35. or (3) if the cause is not one described by any jurisdictional statute. And, as in Baker v. Carr
    Search
  36. U. S. 678 , 327 U. S. 685 (1946). See King County v. Seattle
    Search
  37. III, is not in all respects coextensive with the potential for federal jurisdiction found in Art. III. See Zwickler v. Koota
    Search
  38. on construction of the Constitution. The Court has consistently held such suits are authorized by the statute. Bell v. Hood
    Search
  39. King County v. Seattle
    Search
  40. School District No. 1, supra. See, e.g., Gully v. First
    Search
  41. The Fair v. Kohler
    Search
  42. S. 518 availability of declaratory relief depends on whether there is a live dispute between the parties, Golden v. Zwickler
    Search
  43. relief may be considered independently of whether other forms of relief are appropriate. See United Public Workers v. Mitchell
    Search
  44. question. It is well established that the federal courts will not adjudicate political questions. See, e.g., Coleman v. Miller
    Search
  45. Oetjen v. Central
    Search
  46. Leather Co., 246 U. S. 297 (1918). In Baker v. Carr
    Search
  47. For, as we pointed out in Baker v. Carr
    Search
  48. value of these cases tends to increase in proportion to their proximity to the Convention in 1787. See Myers v. United
    Search
  49. U.S. Supreme Court Powell v. McCormack
    Search
  50. See United Public Workers v. Mitchell
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial