Morrison v. Olson
Morrison v. Olson is a significant Supreme Court case from 1988 that addressed the constitutionality of the independent counsel statute, established to investigate potential federal crimes by high-ranking government officials. This statute, enacted in 1978, allowed for the appointment of an independent counsel by a special court based on a request from the attorney general. The appointed counsel could only be removed by the attorney general for good cause, which raised concerns about the separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches of government. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion, which upheld the statute, while Justice Antonin Scalia dissented, arguing that it improperly involved the judiciary in executive functions. Scalia's perspective gained traction over time as instances of abuse within the independent counsel process were highlighted. This case illustrates ongoing tensions regarding the balance of power within the U.S. government and has had lasting implications for the oversight of executive conduct.
Morrison v. Olson
Date: June 29, 1988
Citation: 487 U.S. 654
Issue: Separation of powers
Significance: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the independent counsel statute.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote the opinion for the 7-1 majority, upholding the constitutionality of the independent counsel statute. The statute, adopted in 1978, provided for an independent counsel to investigate possible federal criminal violations made by senior executive officials such as the president. The counsel is appointed by a special court on the attorney general’s application and is removable by the attorney general only for good cause. Although Justice Antonin Scalia was the lone dissenter in this case, the wisdom of his position was praised subsequently as abuses of the process became clear. Scalia took a strong separation of powers position under which the judiciary was unconstitutionally involved in the activities of the executive branch a view the Supreme Court itself took in Bowsher v. Synar (1986) and Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha (1983). In these cases, the Court backed away from an abstract formulation and accepted the temporary political popularity of the statute.