United States v. Wurzbach
Encyclopedia
United States v. Wurzbach, 280 U.S. 396
(1930), is a unanimous ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the term "political purpose," as used in the Federal Corrupt Practices Act
, was not impermissibly vague. The Supreme Court reversed the district court, which had quashed an indictment
under the Act.
A member of the United States House of Representatives
from Texas
was indicted under the Federal Corrupt Practices Act on the ground that he had received money from employees of the United States government. The District Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas had thrown out the indictment on two grounds: 1) That the term "political purpose" did not include the behavior in question; and 2) If the term did include the behavior, then the Act was unconstitutional
.
delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court, which contains just 752 words.
Holmes dismissed almost out of hand the district court's lengthy discussion of the terms and structure of the Act. "This language is perfectly intelligible and clearly embraces the acts charged," he wrote. The district court had concluded that Article One, Section 4 of the Constitution only permitted Congress to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections, and that primary elections did not fall under federal control (as per Newberry v. United States
, 256 U.S. 232 (1921). Holmes, however, argued that the ability to restrict receipt of funds was not contingent upon when or where these funds were received (e.g., primary or general election). For argument in this regard, Holmes cited Ex parte Curtis
, 106 U.S. 371.
The district court was reversed, and the case remanded.
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...
(1930), is a unanimous ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the term "political purpose," as used in the Federal Corrupt Practices Act
Federal Corrupt Practices Act
The Federal Corrupt Practices Act was a federal law of the United States enacted in 1910 and amended in 1911 and 1925. It remained the nation's primary law regulating campaign finance in federal elections until the passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1971. Created by President William H...
, was not impermissibly vague. The Supreme Court reversed the district court, which had quashed an indictment
Indictment
An indictment , in the common-law legal system, is a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime. In jurisdictions that maintain the concept of felonies, the serious criminal offence is a felony; jurisdictions that lack the concept of felonies often use that of an indictable offence—an...
under the Act.
A member of the 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...
from Texas
Texas
Texas is the second largest U.S. state by both area and population, and the largest state by area in the contiguous United States.The name, based on the Caddo word "Tejas" meaning "friends" or "allies", was applied by the Spanish to the Caddo themselves and to the region of their settlement in...
was indicted under the Federal Corrupt Practices Act on the ground that he had received money from employees of the United States government. The District Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas had thrown out the indictment on two grounds: 1) That the term "political purpose" did not include the behavior in question; and 2) If the term did include the behavior, then the Act was unconstitutional
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...
.
Majority opinion
Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. was an American jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1902 to 1932...
delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court, which contains just 752 words.
Holmes dismissed almost out of hand the district court's lengthy discussion of the terms and structure of the Act. "This language is perfectly intelligible and clearly embraces the acts charged," he wrote. The district court had concluded that Article One, Section 4 of the Constitution only permitted Congress to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections, and that primary elections did not fall under federal control (as per Newberry v. United States
Newberry v. United States
Newberry v. United States, 256 U.S. 232 is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the United States Constitution did not grant the United States Congress the authority to regulate political party primaries or nomination processes...
, 256 U.S. 232 (1921). Holmes, however, argued that the ability to restrict receipt of funds was not contingent upon when or where these funds were received (e.g., primary or general election). For argument in this regard, Holmes cited Ex parte Curtis
Ex parte Curtis
Ex parte Curtis, 106 U.S. 371 , 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...
, 106 U.S. 371.
The district court was reversed, and the case remanded.