United States v. Ballin
Encyclopedia
United States v. Ballin, is a decision issued on February 29, 1892 by the United States Supreme Court, discussing the constitutional definition of "a quorum
to do business" in Congress
. Justice David Josiah Brewer
delivered the opinion of the unanimous Court, analyzing the constitutional limitations for the United States Senate
and United States House of Representatives
when determining their Rules of Proceedings. In particular, the Court noted that it is well within the powers of the House and Senate to establish their own rules for verifying the presence of a majority of their members.
The case was brought up after the U.S. Board of General Appraisers
affirmed the decision of the Collector of New York
to classify imported worsted
cloth as woolen
s in order to levy a higher rate of customs duty. The importers challenged the validity of the law authorizing the duty increase, alleging an absence of a legislative quorum when the law was passed. On appeal, the Circuit Court of the United States
for the Southern District of New York sustained the claim of the importers and reversed the decision of the Board; the United States appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court, upholding the Board's decision, and establishing unambiguously that when quorum is present, votes of a majority of that quorum are sufficient to pass a bill in Congress
.
On March 1, 1888, the Ways and Means Committee
of the House had started review of the McKinley
Tariff bill
, which would eventually pass the House on May 21, 1890. One part of the tariff bill, authored by Nelson Dingley, Jr.
and known as the Worsted act, would "authorize and direct the Secretary of the Treasury to classify as woolen cloths all imports of worsted cloth," in order to levy a higher rate of customs duty. The Worsted act came up for vote on May 9, 1890, garnering 138 yeas and 3 nays. House Speaker
Thomas B. Reed
requested a roll call, and 74 representatives were recorded by the clerk in the House Journal as being present and refusing to vote. The speaker concluded that those voting, together with the 74 members withholding their votes (in total more than 166 representatives), constituted a quorum present to do business. The House at the time comprised 330 seats. Since 138 yeas were more than one-half of the members present, the speaker declared that the Worsted act had been passed.
On July 21, 1890, Ballin, Joseph & Co imported into New York certain manufactures of worsted. In agreement with the Worsted act, the collector assessed the duty rate prescribed at the time for manufactures of wool. The importers contended that the duty collected was in excess of what the law permitted, according to schedule K of , c.121. In their request for refund from the Board of General Appraisers, the importers argued that the Worsted act had been enacted in violation of Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution of the United States. In particular, Ballin argued that a quorum of the House had not been present when the vote was taken and therefore the bill had not been legally passed.
On October 13, 1890, the Board ruled against Ballin. Judge Henderson M. Somerville drafted the Board's decision, concluding that the act of May 9, 1890, had been constitutionally enacted and that the duty had been correctly assessed by the New York collector. The importers appealed to the Circuit Court of the United States
for the Southern District of New York, which reversed the decision of the Board. The circuit court reasoned that the act Congress had passed "expressly confined the exercise of its powers to the Secretary of the Treasury, in exclusion of any other officer" and that the collector had overstepped his bounds.
William Miller and Solicitor General
William Howard Taft
arguing the case for the government. Edwin B. Smith represented Ballin, Joseph & Co. Two questions were presented to the Court: Was the act of May 9, 1890, legally passed?, and What was the act's meaning? On February 29, 1892, the Court issued its unanimous decision, addressing both questions in turn.
The Court started by assuming that information recorded in the House Journal is always accurate. This effectively dismissed any claims based on possible mistakes in the journal. The Court noted that Speaker Reed's actions on May 9, 1890, as recorded in the journal, had been in direct compliance with Rule XV; Rule XV had been legally enacted under the Rules of Proceedings Clause of the Constitution. Article I, Section 5, Clause 1, of the Constitution provides that "a majority of each [house] shall constitute a quorum to do business." Rule XV provided the House with a clear method to establish the presence of a quorum.
After determining that a quorum of the House had been present on May 9, 1890, the Court addressed the legality of enacting the Worsted act. The universal default rule of parliamentary bodies is that a majority of the quorum may take action and therefore the power of the house "[arises] when a majority are present." In concluding their analysis of the first question, the Court stated that "a majority shall be a quorum to do business; but a majority of that quorum is sufficient to decide the most important question."
Having established that the Worsted act was legally passed, the Court addressed the second question. The act unambiguously stated that duties on worsted cloths became identical to those placed on woolen cloths by the Tariff Act of 1883
. Although no direct action was necessary by the Secretary of the Treasury to put this act into force, the Treasury Department issued a letter on May 13, 1890, instructing all customs officers to publish the act "for the information and guidance of the public."
The judgment of the Circuit Court was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.
The Spokane Review did not see the news as good, however, stating that czarism
had taken over the government: "The supreme court has handed down an infamous decision sustaining the ruling of Speaker Reed that a quorum is a quorum whether some of the members are dumb, deaf, blind or devoid of common sense. It is evident that we [...] will never enjoy perfect happiness until [this country] fills every branch of the public service with filibusterers and equips them with supreme power to block the transaction of business."
and 16 other well-known law professors asserted that rules of procedure in Congress that require more than a simple majority of those voting to pass legislation are unconstitutional, in part basing their conclusion on the holding of Ballin. In particular, Ackerman et al. were writing about a rule adopted by the 104th Congress requiring a three-fifths majority to pass an increase in income tax rates. Professors John O. McGinnis and Michael B. Rappaport responded in the article The Constitutionality of Legislative Supermajority Requirements: A Defense by interpreting Ballin as stating that the universal default rule that a majority of the quorum may take action applies only when neither the Constitution nor the legislature imposes a specific rule.
On that topic, the U.S. Mason's Manual
notes, "A deliberative body cannot by its own act or rule require a two-thirds vote to take any action where the constitution or controlling authority requires only a majority vote. To require a two-thirds vote, for example, to take any action would be to give to any number more than one-third of the members the power to defeat the action and amount to a delegation of the powers of the body to a minority." The Rules of Proceedings Clause in the Constitution—the organic act under which Congress is assembled—authorizes the houses of Congress to pass a supermajority rule if they so choose. Hence, rules requiring supermajorities are constitutional, but the rules themselves could be changed by a simple majority.
The debate between minority rights and majority rule continues , in particular as it relates to filibustering in the United States Senate
. If the Senate voted on whether to change the cloture
rule, only a simple majority would be needed to change it, though the attempt itself might be filibuster
ed in an effort to prevent the majority from reaching a vote. However, a possible paradox arises due to the presence of a rule that requires a two-thirds majority to change the rules.
Quorum
A quorum is the minimum number of members of a deliberative assembly necessary to conduct the business of that group...
to do business" in 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....
. Justice David Josiah Brewer
David Josiah Brewer
David Josiah Brewer was an American jurist and an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court for 20 years.-Early life:...
delivered the opinion of the unanimous Court, analyzing the constitutional limitations for the United States Senate
United States Senate
The United States Senate is the upper house of the bicameral legislature of the United States, and together with the United States House of Representatives comprises the United States Congress. The composition and powers of the Senate are established in Article One of the U.S. Constitution. Each...
and United States House of Representatives
United States House of Representatives
The United States House of Representatives is one of the two Houses of the United States Congress, the bicameral legislature which also includes the Senate.The composition and powers of the House are established in Article One of the Constitution...
when determining their Rules of Proceedings. In particular, the Court noted that it is well within the powers of the House and Senate to establish their own rules for verifying the presence of a majority of their members.
The case was brought up after the U.S. Board of General Appraisers
United States Court of International Trade
The United States Court of International Trade is an Article III court, with full powers in law and equity. The Customs Court Act of 1980 replaced the old United States Customs Court with the United States Court of International Trade. The Court has nine sitting Judges, as well as Senior Judges...
affirmed the decision of the Collector of New York
Collector of the Port of New York
The Collector of Customs at the Port of New York, most often referred to as Collector of the Port of New York, sometimes also as Collector of Customs for the Port of New York or Collector of Customs for the District of New York, was a federal officer who was in charge of the collection of import...
to classify imported worsted
Worsted
Worsted , is the name of a yarn, the cloth made from this yarn, and a yarn weight category. The name derives from the village of Worstead in the English county of Norfolk...
cloth as woolen
Woolen
Woolen or woollen is a type of yarn made from carded wool. Woolen yarn is soft, light, stretchy, and full of air. It is thus a good insulator, and makes a good knitting yarn...
s in order to levy a higher rate of customs duty. The importers challenged the validity of the law authorizing the duty increase, alleging an absence of a legislative quorum when the law was passed. On appeal, the Circuit Court of the United States
United States circuit court
The United States circuit courts were the original intermediate level courts of the United States federal court system. They were established by the Judiciary Act of 1789. They had trial court jurisdiction over civil suits of diversity jurisdiction and major federal crimes. They also had appellate...
for the Southern District of New York sustained the claim of the importers and reversed the decision of the Board; the United States appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court, upholding the Board's decision, and establishing unambiguously that when quorum is present, votes of a majority of that quorum are sufficient to pass a bill in 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....
.
Background
For its first 100 years of existence, the United States House of Representatives did not pass legislation unless a full quorum of the House approved the bill. Those present, but not voting, could block votes and prevent a quorum—the technique of the disappearing quorum. The practice was terminated on February 1890, with the adoption of a new set of House rules. In particular, Rule XV (passed on February 14, 1890) established that a quorum is satisfied if a majority of members are present, even if they withhold their votes on a particular bill.On March 1, 1888, the Ways and Means Committee
United States House Committee on Ways and Means
The Committee of Ways and Means is the chief tax-writing committee of the United States House of Representatives. Members of the Ways and Means Committee are not allowed to serve on any other House Committees unless they apply for a waiver from their party's congressional leadership...
of the House had started review of the McKinley
William McKinley
William McKinley, Jr. was the 25th President of the United States . He is best known for winning fiercely fought elections, while supporting the gold standard and high tariffs; he succeeded in forging a Republican coalition that for the most part dominated national politics until the 1930s...
Tariff bill
McKinley Tariff
The Tariff Act of 1890, commonly called the McKinley Tariff, was an act framed by Representative William McKinley that became law on October 1, 1890. The tariff raised the average duty on imports to almost fifty percent, an act designed to protect domestic industries from foreign competition...
, which would eventually pass the House on May 21, 1890. One part of the tariff bill, authored by Nelson Dingley, Jr.
Nelson Dingley, Jr.
Nelson Dingley, Jr., also known as Edward Nelson Dingley, Jr., was a journalist and politician from the U.S. state of Maine....
and known as the Worsted act, would "authorize and direct the Secretary of the Treasury to classify as woolen cloths all imports of worsted cloth," in order to levy a higher rate of customs duty. The Worsted act came up for vote on May 9, 1890, garnering 138 yeas and 3 nays. House Speaker
Speaker of the United States House of Representatives
The Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, or Speaker of the House, is the presiding officer of the United States House of Representatives...
Thomas B. Reed
Thomas Brackett Reed
Thomas Brackett Reed, , occasionally ridiculed as Czar Reed, was a U.S. Representative from Maine, and Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1889–1891 and from 1895–1899...
requested a roll call, and 74 representatives were recorded by the clerk in the House Journal as being present and refusing to vote. The speaker concluded that those voting, together with the 74 members withholding their votes (in total more than 166 representatives), constituted a quorum present to do business. The House at the time comprised 330 seats. Since 138 yeas were more than one-half of the members present, the speaker declared that the Worsted act had been passed.
On July 21, 1890, Ballin, Joseph & Co imported into New York certain manufactures of worsted. In agreement with the Worsted act, the collector assessed the duty rate prescribed at the time for manufactures of wool. The importers contended that the duty collected was in excess of what the law permitted, according to schedule K of , c.121. In their request for refund from the Board of General Appraisers, the importers argued that the Worsted act had been enacted in violation of Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution of the United States. In particular, Ballin argued that a quorum of the House had not been present when the vote was taken and therefore the bill had not been legally passed.
On October 13, 1890, the Board ruled against Ballin. Judge Henderson M. Somerville drafted the Board's decision, concluding that the act of May 9, 1890, had been constitutionally enacted and that the duty had been correctly assessed by the New York collector. The importers appealed to the Circuit Court of the United States
United States circuit court
The United States circuit courts were the original intermediate level courts of the United States federal court system. They were established by the Judiciary Act of 1789. They had trial court jurisdiction over civil suits of diversity jurisdiction and major federal crimes. They also had appellate...
for the Southern District of New York, which reversed the decision of the Board. The circuit court reasoned that the act Congress had passed "expressly confined the exercise of its powers to the Secretary of the Treasury, in exclusion of any other officer" and that the collector had overstepped his bounds.
Opinion of the Court
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on December 2, 1891, with Attorney GeneralUnited States Attorney General
The United States Attorney General is the head of the United States Department of Justice concerned with legal affairs and is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States government. The attorney general is considered to be the chief lawyer of the U.S. government...
William Miller and Solicitor General
United States Solicitor General
The United States Solicitor General is the person appointed to represent the federal government of the United States before the Supreme Court of the United States. The current Solicitor General, Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. was confirmed by the United States Senate on June 6, 2011 and sworn in on June...
William Howard Taft
William Howard Taft
William Howard Taft was the 27th President of the United States and later the tenth Chief Justice of the United States...
arguing the case for the government. Edwin B. Smith represented Ballin, Joseph & Co. Two questions were presented to the Court: Was the act of May 9, 1890, legally passed?, and What was the act's meaning? On February 29, 1892, the Court issued its unanimous decision, addressing both questions in turn.
The Court started by assuming that information recorded in the House Journal is always accurate. This effectively dismissed any claims based on possible mistakes in the journal. The Court noted that Speaker Reed's actions on May 9, 1890, as recorded in the journal, had been in direct compliance with Rule XV; Rule XV had been legally enacted under the Rules of Proceedings Clause of the Constitution. Article I, Section 5, Clause 1, of the Constitution provides that "a majority of each [house] shall constitute a quorum to do business." Rule XV provided the House with a clear method to establish the presence of a quorum.
After determining that a quorum of the House had been present on May 9, 1890, the Court addressed the legality of enacting the Worsted act. The universal default rule of parliamentary bodies is that a majority of the quorum may take action and therefore the power of the house "[arises] when a majority are present." In concluding their analysis of the first question, the Court stated that "a majority shall be a quorum to do business; but a majority of that quorum is sufficient to decide the most important question."
Having established that the Worsted act was legally passed, the Court addressed the second question. The act unambiguously stated that duties on worsted cloths became identical to those placed on woolen cloths by the Tariff Act of 1883
Tariff of 1883
In United States tax law history, the Tariff of 1883 , also known as the Mongrel Tariff Act by its critics, reduced high tariff rates only marginally, and left in place fairly strong protectionist barriers....
. Although no direct action was necessary by the Secretary of the Treasury to put this act into force, the Treasury Department issued a letter on May 13, 1890, instructing all customs officers to publish the act "for the information and guidance of the public."
The judgment of the Circuit Court was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.
Reaction
The decision of the Supreme Court came as no surprise in Washington. Even Democrats who had objected to Reed's tactics in the Republican-controlled House as tyrannical, readily admitted that Representatives should participate in the business of the House whenever present. After being congratulated by his colleagues, Reed remarked on how pleased he was by the Court's decision: "That the whole need not participate is settled, their presence being the only essential."The Spokane Review did not see the news as good, however, stating that czarism
Thomas Brackett Reed
Thomas Brackett Reed, , occasionally ridiculed as Czar Reed, was a U.S. Representative from Maine, and Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1889–1891 and from 1895–1899...
had taken over the government: "The supreme court has handed down an infamous decision sustaining the ruling of Speaker Reed that a quorum is a quorum whether some of the members are dumb, deaf, blind or devoid of common sense. It is evident that we [...] will never enjoy perfect happiness until [this country] fills every branch of the public service with filibusterers and equips them with supreme power to block the transaction of business."
Subsequent developments
In their 1995 Open Letter to Congressman Gingrich Bruce AckermanBruce Ackerman
Bruce Arnold Ackerman is an American constitutional law scholar. He is a Sterling Professor at Yale Law School and one of the most frequently cited legal academics in the United States....
and 16 other well-known law professors asserted that rules of procedure in Congress that require more than a simple majority of those voting to pass legislation are unconstitutional, in part basing their conclusion on the holding of Ballin. In particular, Ackerman et al. were writing about a rule adopted by the 104th Congress requiring a three-fifths majority to pass an increase in income tax rates. Professors John O. McGinnis and Michael B. Rappaport responded in the article The Constitutionality of Legislative Supermajority Requirements: A Defense by interpreting Ballin as stating that the universal default rule that a majority of the quorum may take action applies only when neither the Constitution nor the legislature imposes a specific rule.
On that topic, the U.S. Mason's Manual
Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure
Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure, commonly referred to as Mason's Manual. This 700+ page book serves as the official parliamentary manual of most state legislative bodies in the United States. "Adopted as the authority on questions of parliamentary law and procedure in California, it is to...
notes, "A deliberative body cannot by its own act or rule require a two-thirds vote to take any action where the constitution or controlling authority requires only a majority vote. To require a two-thirds vote, for example, to take any action would be to give to any number more than one-third of the members the power to defeat the action and amount to a delegation of the powers of the body to a minority." The Rules of Proceedings Clause in the Constitution—the organic act under which Congress is assembled—authorizes the houses of Congress to pass a supermajority rule if they so choose. Hence, rules requiring supermajorities are constitutional, but the rules themselves could be changed by a simple majority.
The debate between minority rights and majority rule continues , in particular as it relates to filibustering in the United States Senate
United States Senate
The United States Senate is the upper house of the bicameral legislature of the United States, and together with the United States House of Representatives comprises the United States Congress. The composition and powers of the Senate are established in Article One of the U.S. Constitution. Each...
. If the Senate voted on whether to change the cloture
Cloture
In parliamentary procedure, cloture is a motion or process aimed at bringing debate to a quick end. It is also called closure or, informally, a guillotine. The cloture procedure originated in the French National Assembly, from which the name is taken. Clôture is French for "ending" or "conclusion"...
rule, only a simple majority would be needed to change it, though the attempt itself might be filibuster
Filibuster
A filibuster is a type of parliamentary procedure. Specifically, it is the right of an individual to extend debate, allowing a lone member to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a given proposal...
ed in an effort to prevent the majority from reaching a vote. However, a possible paradox arises due to the presence of a rule that requires a two-thirds majority to change the rules.
See also
- ClotureClotureIn parliamentary procedure, cloture is a motion or process aimed at bringing debate to a quick end. It is also called closure or, informally, a guillotine. The cloture procedure originated in the French National Assembly, from which the name is taken. Clôture is French for "ending" or "conclusion"...
- Filibuster (United States Senate)
- Nuclear OptionNuclear optionIn U.S. politics, the "nuclear option" allows the United States Senate to reinterpret a procedural rule by invoking the argument that the Constitution requires that the will of the majority be effective on specific Senate duties and procedures...
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 144
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
- List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Fuller Court
External links
- Full text of opinion (with links to cited material): United States v. Ballin .
- The Tariff act of 1890, compared with the Tariff act of 1883 and the Mills bill (1891), Schedule K, pp. 31–35.