Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Morrison Vs. Olson

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 29, 1988

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

75 entries 6 linked 69 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Germaine US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1878
  2. Bowsher Vs. Synar US Supreme Court · Jul 07, 1986
  3. Fullilove Vs. Klutznick US Supreme Court · Jul 02, 1980
  4. Buckley Vs. Valeo US Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1976
  5. United States Vs. Ferreira US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1851
  6. ins Vs. Chadha US Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1983
  7. U.S. 654 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Morrison v. Olson
    Search
  8. U.S. 654 (1988) Morrison v. Olson
    Search
  9. There is no merit to appellant's contention -- based on Blair v. United
    Search
  10. and conviction. The Act instead puts the removal power squarely in the hands of the Executive Branch. Bowsher v. Synar
    Search
  11. and Myers v. United
    Search
  12. under Article II. Cf. Humphrey's Executor v. United
    Search
  13. Wiener v. United
    Search
  14. of Appeals cannot be reviewed on this appeal from the District Court's contempt judgment. Appellant relies on Blair v. United
    Search
  15. between the parties, and the courts possess the power to redress or resolve the current controversy. See Bender v. Williamsport
    Search
  16. U. S. 508 , 99 U. S. 509 (1879). As we stated in Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  17. officer. In United States v. Eaton
    Search
  18. see id. at 100 U. S. 379 -380, were inferior officers for purposes of the Clause. In Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United
    Search
  19. Id. at 282 U. S. 353 , n. 2. All of this is consistent with our reference in United States v. Nixon
    Search
  20. recognized that courts may appoint private attorneys to act as prosecutor for judicial contempt judgments. See Young v. United
    Search
  21. States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U. S. 787 (1987). In Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United
    Search
  22. Lower courts have also upheld interim judicial appointments of United States Attorneys, see United States v. Solomon
    Search
  23. See Muskrat v. United
    Search
  24. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 424 U. S. 123 (citing United States v. Ferreira
    Search
  25. to prevent the judiciary from encroaching into areas reserved for the other branches. See United States Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty
    Search
  26. to construe a statute in order to save it from constitutional infirmities, see, e.g., Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor
    Search
  27. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor
    Search
  28. Id. at 478 U. S. 726 . A primary antecedent for this ruling was our 1926 decision in Myers v. United
    Search
  29. a)(3). In our view, the removal provisions of the Act make this case more analogous to Humphrey's Executor v. United
    Search
  30. States, 295 U. S. 602 (1935), and Wiener v. United
    Search
  31. constitutional scheme of the separation of governmental powers into the three coordinate branches. See, e.g., Bowsher v. Synar
    Search
  32. U. S. 725 (citing Humphrey's Executor, 295 U.S. at 295 U. S. 629 -630). As we stated in Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  33. Nixon v. Administrator
    Search
  34. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
    Search
  35. by Congress to increase its own powers at the expense of the Executive Branch. Cf. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor
    Search
  36. U.S. at 478 U. S. 856 . Unlike some of our previous cases, most recently Bowsher v. Synar
    Search
  37. INS v. Chadha
    Search
  38. functions that we have recognized generally as being incidental to the legislative function of Congress. See McGrain v. Daugherty
    Search
  39. Nixon v. Administrator
    Search
  40. in the appointment of court officials such as United States commissioners or magistrates, see Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United
    Search
  41. by, if necessary, compelling the testimony of witnesses. See Brown v. United
    Search
  42. of criminal investigations on the basis of evidence or affidavits submitted in an ex parte proceeding. In Young v. United
    Search
  43. This same argument was raised by the Solicitor General in Bowsher v. Synar
    Search
  44. impediment to congressionally imposed restrictions on the President's removal powers. See also United States v. Perkins
    Search
  45. officials is illustrated by a comparison of our decisions in cases such as Humphrey's Executor, Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  46. language which we think is more than the text will bear. It is also contrary to our holding in United States v. Perkins
    Search
  47. United States v. House
    Search
  48. caution that we owe great deference to Congress' view that what it has done is constitutional, see, e.g., Rostker v. Goldberg
    Search
  49. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic
    Search
  50. United States v. National
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial