United States v. Lovett
1946 U.S. LEXIS 2280, 66 S. Ct. 1073, 328 U.S. 303 (1946)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A legislative act that applies to named individuals in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial is an unconstitutional bill of attainder prohibited by Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution.
Facts:
- Robert Morss Lovett, Goodwin B. Watson, and William E. Dodd, Jr. were federal government employees in 1943 whose employing agencies were satisfied with their work and wished to retain them.
- Amidst concerns about 'subversive' activities, Congressman Martin Dies publicly named the three men as 'radical bureaucrats' and urged Congress to stop appropriating money for their salaries.
- A special subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee held secret hearings to investigate the allegations, during which the accused employees were not permitted to have legal counsel present.
- The subcommittee concluded that the three men were guilty of 'subversive activity' and were therefore unfit to continue in government employment.
- Based on these findings, Congress enacted § 304 of the Urgent Deficiency Appropriation Act of 1943.
- The Act specifically named Lovett, Watson, and Dodd and prohibited the use of any appropriated funds to pay their salaries after November 15, 1943, unless they were reappointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
- The President, while signing the appropriation bill out of necessity, stated his belief that § 304 was unconstitutional and did not reappoint the men.
- The men continued to work for their respective agencies for a period after the deadline but did not receive compensation for their services.
Procedural Posture:
- Lovett, Watson, and Dodd (respondents) sued the United States (petitioner) in the U.S. Court of Claims to recover compensation for work performed after their salaries were cut off.
- The Court of Claims, a court of first instance for such claims, entered judgments in favor of the respondents.
- The United States government sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision of the Court of Claims.
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 a provision in an appropriation act that names specific federal employees and permanently bars them from receiving compensation from any appropriated funds for government service constitute an unconstitutional bill of attainder?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Black
Yes, the provision is an unconstitutional bill of attainder. A bill of attainder is a legislative act that inflicts punishment without a judicial trial. The Court found that the clear purpose and effect of § 304 was not merely a non-justiciable appropriations matter, but a permanent and punitive bar of the three named men from all government service. This permanent proscription from their chosen vocation is a severe punishment. By singling out Lovett, Watson, and Dodd by name, finding them 'guilty' of subversive conduct through a legislative process, and imposing this punishment, Congress usurped the judicial function and bypassed the procedural safeguards of a trial guaranteed by the Constitution, such as the right to counsel, confrontation of witnesses, and an impartial jury. Therefore, the act falls precisely within the constitutional prohibition against bills of attainder.
Concurring - Justice Frankfurter
No, the provision is not a bill of attainder, but the respondents are still entitled to recover their pay. A true bill of attainder, in its historical sense, requires a legislative declaration of guilt for a specified offense and the imposition of punishment, which § 304 lacks on its face. The Court should not inquire into legislative motive to find these elements. Rather than deciding the difficult constitutional question, the Court should apply the canon of constitutional avoidance and interpret the statute narrowly. Under this narrow reading, § 304 merely forbids disbursing agents of the Treasury from paying the respondents out of appropriated funds; it does not extinguish the underlying contractual obligation of the government to pay for services rendered. Because the government's obligation to pay remains, the respondents are entitled to sue for their compensation in the Court of Claims.
Analysis:
This case provides the modern framework for analyzing the Bill of Attainder Clause, clarifying that the prohibition extends beyond historical capital punishments to include punitive measures like permanent exclusion from employment. It strongly reinforces the separation of powers doctrine by preventing the legislature from performing the inherently judicial function of determining guilt and imposing punishment on specific individuals. The decision serves as a crucial precedent against legislative trials and politically motivated punishments, ensuring that even in times of national security concerns, individuals cannot be deprived of their livelihood by legislative fiat without the due process of a judicial trial.
