McGrain v. Daugherty
273 U.S. 135 (1927)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The power of either house of Congress to conduct inquiries and compel testimony from private individuals is an implied constitutional power, essential and appropriate as an auxiliary to its legislative function.
Facts:
- The U.S. Senate initiated an investigation into the administration of the Department of Justice under Attorney General Harry M. Daugherty.
- The investigation followed charges of misfeasance and nonfeasance, specifically alleging Daugherty's failure to prosecute violators of antitrust laws and others who had defrauded the government.
- The Senate created a select committee to investigate the facts and circumstances of the alleged failures to determine if legislative action was necessary.
- The committee issued a subpoena to Mally S. Daugherty, the brother of the Attorney General and president of the Midland National Bank.
- A first subpoena demanded Mally Daugherty's testimony and various bank records.
- A second subpoena, issued later, demanded only Mally Daugherty's testimony.
- Mally Daugherty failed to appear in response to either subpoena and offered no excuse for his failures.
Procedural Posture:
- After Mally S. Daugherty refused to comply with the committee's subpoenas, the full Senate adopted a resolution issuing a warrant for his arrest to compel his testimony.
- The Senate's Deputy Sergeant at Arms, John J. McGrain, took Mally S. Daugherty into custody in Cincinnati, Ohio.
- Mally S. Daugherty filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
- The district court, as the court of first instance, granted the writ and discharged Daugherty from custody, holding that the Senate had exceeded its constitutional powers.
- John J. McGrain, as the appellant, filed a direct appeal of the district court's order to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 Congress have the power, through its own process, to compel a private individual to appear and give testimony as an aid to its legislative function?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Van Devanter
Yes, Congress has the power to compel a private individual to appear and give testimony as an aid to its legislative function. The power of inquiry, with process to enforce it, is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively without information regarding the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect. This power was recognized and used by the British Parliament, colonial legislatures, and has been consistently asserted by both houses of Congress since the framing of the Constitution. While this power is not explicitly granted in the Constitution, it is implied as a necessary component for the effective exercise of the express power to legislate. This investigatory power is limited to inquiries concerning subjects upon which legislation could be had and is not a general power to inquire into the private affairs of citizens. In this case, the investigation into the administration of the Department of Justice was a subject plainly within Congress's power to legislate, and it is presumed that the Senate's object was to obtain information for legislative purposes.
Analysis:
This landmark decision firmly established the constitutional basis for Congress's broad investigatory powers. It confirmed that the power to compel testimony is not explicitly listed but is implied as a necessary tool for the legislative branch to function effectively. The ruling provides the foundation for nearly all modern congressional investigations, giving committees significant authority to probe into the executive branch and private conduct, so long as a potential legislative purpose can be articulated. However, the Court also set important limits, distinguishing this power from a general warrant to expose private affairs or to perform a judicial function, a principle first articulated in Kilbourn v. Thompson. Future legal challenges to congressional subpoenas would be judged against the standard of whether the inquiry is pertinent to a legitimate legislative subject.
