Mississippi v. Johnson
"Mississippi v. Johnson" is a significant Supreme Court case from 1867 that arose during the turbulent Reconstruction era following the Civil War. The case stemmed from Mississippi's challenge to the constitutionality of the Reconstruction Act, which Congress had enacted despite President Andrew Johnson's veto. This act aimed to reorganize the governance of the former Confederate states and mandated protections for newly freed African American voters. President Johnson viewed Mississippi's challenge as a direct threat to executive authority and his administration's policies.
In the ruling, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase articulated that the Court lacked the power to prevent the president from executing an act, even if deemed unconstitutional. This determination emphasized the separation of powers and clarified that while presidential actions could be scrutinized in court, immediate intervention by the Supreme Court was not permissible. The case highlights the complexities of presidential power during a period of significant social and political change in the United States, particularly concerning civil rights and governance in the post-Civil War context.
Mississippi v. Johnson
Date: April 15, 1867
Citation: 71 U.S. 475
Issue: Presidential powers
Significance: The Supreme Court held that the courts could not stop the president from enforcing a law that was allegedly unconstitutional.
Congress enacted the Reconstruction Act in 1867 over the veto of President Andrew Johnson. The act gave president-appointed military commanders power over the ten former Confederate states and required the states to make new constitutions giving former slaves the right to vote. Mississippi challenged the act’s constitutionality and tried to stop its enforcement. In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court had commanded executive officials to do their duty. However, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, writing for a unanimous Court, argued that Marbury covered only ministerial acts and the Court could not stop a president from carrying into effect an unconstitutional act. Once the president had acted, Chase noted, his actions were subject to legal challenges in the courts.
