Morrison v Olson (independent counsel case)
Morrison v. Olson (1988) - United States Supreme Court
Background:
Morrison v. Olson involved the constitutionality of the Ethics in Government Act (1978), which allowed the appointment of an independent counsel (a special prosecutor) to investigate and prosecute government officials for wrongdoing.
The independent counsel was appointed by a special panel of judges, not directly by the Attorney General or the President.
The question was whether this arrangement violated the separation of powers under the U.S. Constitution.
Facts:
Theodore Olson, an Assistant Attorney General, was investigated by independent counsel Alexia Morrison for alleged misconduct.
Olson challenged the independent counsel statute, claiming it infringed on executive power by limiting the President’s control over prosecution.
Issue:
Does the independent counsel statute violate the separation of powers doctrine by limiting the President's authority to remove or supervise executive officers?
Holding:
The Supreme Court upheld the statute by a 7-1 vote.
Reasoning:
The Court reasoned that the independent counsel was an “inferior officer” and could be appointed by the judiciary under the Appointments Clause.
The limited removal power over the independent counsel did not violate the separation of powers because it was an “extraordinary” and “limited” circumstance.
The statute preserved executive authority to ensure accountability while preventing political interference in sensitive investigations.
Significance:
The decision is a landmark in administrative law and constitutional law, balancing executive control with independent investigation.
It legitimized the use of independent counsels to check executive misconduct without overly infringing on executive power.
Related Cases on Independent Counsel and Separation of Powers:
1. United States v. Nixon (1974)
Facts: During the Watergate scandal, President Nixon refused to turn over tapes citing executive privilege.
Issue: Does the President have absolute privilege to withhold evidence in criminal investigations?
Holding: No. The Supreme Court ordered Nixon to produce the tapes.
Significance: Established that the President is not above the law and executive privilege is limited. This case paved the way for the independent counsel to investigate executive officials.
2. Myers v. United States (1926)
Facts: The President removed a postmaster without Senate approval.
Issue: Does the President have exclusive removal power over executive officers?
Holding: Yes, the President has the exclusive power to remove executive officers.
Significance: Strongly affirmed executive control over administrative officers, forming a key precedent for the separation of powers debate in Morrison v. Olson.
3. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935)
Facts: The President removed a Federal Trade Commissioner without cause.
Issue: Can the President remove independent regulatory commissioners at will?
Holding: No. Commissioners could only be removed for cause as the agency performs quasi-legislative/judicial functions.
Significance: Distinguished the removal powers in independent agencies, limiting executive authority and allowing more agency independence — important for independent counsel debates.
4. Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010)
Facts: The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board members were protected from removal except for cause.
Issue: Does dual for-cause removal protection violate separation of powers?
Holding: Yes, it violates separation of powers by limiting the President’s removal power excessively.
Significance: Strengthened the principle that executive officers must be accountable to the President, clarifying limits on independence that Morrison had allowed.
5. Edmond v. United States (1997)
Facts: Questioned whether certain officers were “inferior officers” or “principal officers” under the Appointments Clause.
Holding: Officers who are supervised by other executive officers are “inferior officers” and can be appointed without Senate confirmation.
Significance: This case refined the legal framework for appointing independent counsels and administrative officers, underpinning Morrison’s rationale.
Summary Table of Key Cases
| Case | Issue | Holding/Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Morrison v. Olson (1988) | Constitutionality of independent counsel | Upheld statute; independent counsel is an inferior officer |
| United States v. Nixon (1974) | Limits on executive privilege | Executive privilege is not absolute |
| Myers v. United States (1926) | President’s removal power | President has exclusive removal power over executive officers |
| Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S. (1935) | Removal of independent regulatory commissioners | President can only remove for cause |
| Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB (2010) | Limits on dual for-cause removal protections | Dual protections violate separation of powers |
| Edmond v. United States (1997) | Appointment of inferior officers | Officers supervised by others are inferior officers |
Conclusion:
Morrison v. Olson represents a critical balance between independence and executive control in administrative law.
It affirmed that independent counsel can be constitutionally appointed to investigate executive misconduct while preserving separation of powers.
Subsequent cases like Free Enterprise Fund and Edmond refined the boundaries of agency independence and removal protections.
RELATED Blog
0 comments