The State of Mississippi v. Johnson, President

Supreme Court of the United States
71 U.S. 475, 18 L.Ed.437 (1867)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The judicial branch lacks the jurisdiction to issue an injunction against the President of the United States to prevent the performance of his official executive and political duties.

Facts:

On March 2nd and March 23rd, 1867, the U.S. Congress passed a series of laws known as the Reconstruction Acts.
These acts divided the former Confederate states into military districts and placed them under the command of generals.
The acts required the President, Andrew Johnson, to assign these generals and detail sufficient military forces to enable them to perform their duties.
The duties of the commanding generals, which were to be performed under the President's supervision as commander-in-chief, involved governing the southern states.
The State of Mississippi contended that these acts were unconstitutional.

Procedural Posture:

The State of Mississippi filed a motion in the U.S. Supreme Court, as a court of first instance, for leave to file a bill of complaint.
The proposed bill sought a perpetual injunction to restrain President Andrew Johnson and General E. O. C. Ord from enforcing the Reconstruction Acts of 1867.
The U.S. Attorney General objected to the motion, arguing that the Court should not permit a bill to be filed that seeks to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties.

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 judicial branch have the power to issue an injunction to restrain the President of the United States from executing an act of Congress alleged to be unconstitutional?

Opinions:

Majority - The Chief Justice

No. The judiciary cannot restrain the President from performing his official duties. The Court distinguished between purely ministerial duties, which are specific acts required by law without any discretion, and executive duties, which require the exercise of judgment and political discretion. The duty of the President to enforce the Reconstruction Acts falls into the latter category. For the Court to interfere with the President's executive and political functions would violate the separation of powers. Such an action would be an 'absurd and excessive extravagance' and could lead to a 'collision' between the executive and legislative branches, as the President might be impeached for obeying the Court's order. Furthermore, the Court noted it would have no power to enforce such an injunction if the President were to refuse obedience.

Analysis:

This case solidifies a key aspect of the separation of powers doctrine by shielding the President's executive and political functions from direct judicial oversight through injunctions. It establishes that the proper remedy for presidential actions taken under allegedly unconstitutional laws is political, such as impeachment, rather than judicial. While the Court distinguished these executive duties from the ministerial duties of cabinet officers seen in cases like Marbury v. Madison, it left open the question of whether a president could be compelled to perform a purely ministerial act. The decision protects the autonomy of the executive branch in carrying out its constitutional responsibilities.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: The State of Mississippi v. Johnson, President (1867)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"