Ex parte Curtis
Encyclopedia
Ex parte Curtis, 106 U.S. 371
(1882), is an 8-to-1 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Act of August 15, 1876, was a constitutionally
valid exercise of the enumerated powers
of the United States Congress
under Article One, Section 8 of the United States Constitution
.
The petitioner had been convicted of receiving money for political purposes in violation of the Act of August 15, 1876. The petitioner then asked the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus.
Morrison Waite
wrote the opinion for the majority. The constitutional grounds under which the petitioner challenged the Act were not discussed by the Court. Chief Justice Waite noted that Congress had a lengthy history of passing laws restricting the rights and privileges of civil servants, and that the constitutionality of such laws had never before been challenged.
Next, Waite affirmed that Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly gave Congress the power to determine for itself what was proper in the realm of reining in political corruption:
Waite refused to pass judgment on the validity of the writ of habeas corpus, concluding that the Supreme Court's "jurisdiction is limited to the single question of the power of the court to commit the prisoner for the act of which he has been convicted."
rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association:
Justice Bradley also concluded that the Act was overbroad, and that the same positive ends (ending political corruption) could have been achieved by alternative, narrower means.
At least one commentator has concluded that Ex parte Curtis is still "good law."
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1882), is an 8-to-1 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Act of August 15, 1876, was a constitutionally
Constitutionality
Constitutionality is the condition of acting in accordance with an applicable constitution. Acts that are not in accordance with the rules laid down in the constitution are deemed to be ultra vires.-See also:*ultra vires*Company law*Constitutional law...
valid exercise of the enumerated powers
Enumerated powers
The enumerated powers are a list of items found in Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution that set forth the authoritative capacity of the United States Congress. In summary, Congress may exercise the powers that the Constitution grants it, subject to explicit restrictions in the Bill of...
of the United States Congress
United States Congress
The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Congress meets in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C....
under Article One, Section 8 of the United States Constitution
United States Constitution
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.The first three...
.
The petitioner had been convicted of receiving money for political purposes in violation of the Act of August 15, 1876. The petitioner then asked the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus.
Majority opinion
Chief JusticeChief Justice of the United States
The Chief Justice of the United States is the head of the United States federal court system and the chief judge of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Chief Justice is one of nine Supreme Court justices; the other eight are the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States...
Morrison Waite
Morrison Waite
Morrison Remick Waite, nicknamed "Mott" was the seventh Chief Justice of the United States from 1874 to 1888.-Early life and education:...
wrote the opinion for the majority. The constitutional grounds under which the petitioner challenged the Act were not discussed by the Court. Chief Justice Waite noted that Congress had a lengthy history of passing laws restricting the rights and privileges of civil servants, and that the constitutionality of such laws had never before been challenged.
Next, Waite affirmed that Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly gave Congress the power to determine for itself what was proper in the realm of reining in political corruption:
- The evident purpose of Congress in all this class of enactments has been to promote efficiency and integrity in the discharge of official duties, and to maintain proper discipline in the public service. Clearly such a purpose is within the just scope of legislative power, and it is not easy to see why the act now under consideration does not come fairly within the legitimate means to such an end.
Waite refused to pass judgment on the validity of the writ of habeas corpus, concluding that the Supreme Court's "jurisdiction is limited to the single question of the power of the court to commit the prisoner for the act of which he has been convicted."
Dissent
Associate Justice Joseph P. Bradley dissented. He concluded that the Act impermissibly infringed on the First AmendmentFirst Amendment to the United States Constitution
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering...
rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association:
- The offices of the government do not belong to the Legislative Department to dispose of on any conditions it may choose to impose. ... To deny to a man the privilege of associating and making joint contributions with such other citizens as he may choose, is an unjust restraint of his right to propagate and promote his views on public affairs. The freedom of speech and of the press, and that of assembling together to consult upon and discuss matters of public interest, and to join in petitioning for a redress of grievances, are expressly secured by the Constitution.The spirit of this clause covers and embraces the right of every citizen to engage in such discussions, and to promote the views of himself and his associates freely, without being trammelled by inconvenient restrictions. Such restrictions, in my judgment, are imposed by the law in question.
Justice Bradley also concluded that the Act was overbroad, and that the same positive ends (ending political corruption) could have been achieved by alternative, narrower means.
Assessment
One of the interesting aspects of the majority's decision is that it believed Congress did not prohibit civil servants from making political donations on their own, but rather prohibited making such donations through their supervisors. But Justice Bradley dissented, in part, by arguing that the law banned even voluntary contributions made through superiors (a ban he felt was unconstitutional).At least one commentator has concluded that Ex parte Curtis is still "good law."