Ex Parte Grossman
45 S. Ct. 332, 267 U.S. 87, 1925 U.S. LEXIS 359 (1925)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The President's power to grant reprieves and pardons for 'Offences against the United States,' as granted by Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, extends to cases of criminal contempt of court.
Facts:
- Philip Grossman maintained a nuisance at his place of business in Chicago by selling liquor in violation of the National Prohibition Act.
- A U.S. District Court issued a temporary order enjoining Grossman from selling liquor.
- After the restraining order was served on him, Grossman sold liquor to several people on his premises.
- Grossman was found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to one year in prison and a $1,000 fine.
- The President of the United States issued a pardon, commuting Grossman's sentence to only the fine of $1,000.
- Grossman accepted the pardon and paid the fine.
- Despite the pardon, the District Court committed Grossman to prison to serve the one-year sentence.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States filed a bill in equity against Philip Grossman in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to enjoin a nuisance under the National Prohibition Act.
- The District Court found Grossman guilty of contempt for violating its restraining order and sentenced him to prison and a fine.
- The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the contempt decree.
- After Grossman received a presidential pardon, the District Court ordered him to serve the prison sentence, ruling the pardon was invalid for a contempt of court.
- Grossman filed an original petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking his release from custody.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the President's constitutional power to grant pardons for 'Offences against the United States' extend to a sentence for criminal contempt of court?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Taft
Yes, the President's pardon power extends to sentences for criminal contempt of court. The Court reasoned that the phrase 'Offences against the United States' in the Constitution must be interpreted according to its meaning under English common law at the time of the framing. At common law, the King's pardon power undisputedly included contempts of court. The framers adopted this broad power, limiting it only for cases of impeachment. The Court distinguished between criminal contempts, which are punitive sentences to vindicate the authority of the court and the public interest, and civil contempts, which are remedial and intended to benefit a private party. The President's pardon power applies to the former but not the latter. The argument that this power violates the separation of powers is unpersuasive, as the Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances, and the pardon power is an executive check on potential judicial overreach or harshness.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes that the President's pardon power is a significant check on the judiciary, extending even to the courts' inherent power to punish for contempt. By rooting the interpretation of 'Offences' in its English common law origins, the Court confirmed the broad scope of this executive power. The case solidifies the distinction between criminal and civil contempt, making the former a public, pardonable offense and the latter a private, non-pardonable remedy. This precedent reinforces that the separation of powers is not absolute but a system of overlapping checks and balances, ensuring no single branch becomes too powerful.
Unlock the full brief for Ex Parte Grossman