POWELL V. MCCORMACK

1. Megan James

1

Powell v. McCormack
395 U.S. 486 (1969)

FACTS
A Congressman was denied his chair position during the 90
th
Congress due to the United States
House of Representation’s refusal of the chair position to the Congressman. The Congressman
was denied his 90
th
Congress chair position because of alleged filed deceptive travel expenses
as well as illegal payments made to the Congressman’s wife. The lower court case decision
decided that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction on the matter of Separation of Powers
found in the Constitution and dismissed the claims. The court lacked jurisdiction because the
court decided the Federal Judiciary could not interfere within the House of Representatives
(legislature branch). This would dismantle the separation of powers between the two branches
of government.
ISSUES
1. Does the United States House of Representatives have the authority to deny a qualified
Congressman a membership in accordance with the United States Constitution Articles I and II?
2. Does the Speech and Debate Clause of the United States Constitution prevent the petitioner
from being questioned and punished in a Federal Court?
HOLDING
The Court held that the United States House of Representatives unconstitutionally excluded the
petitioner from taking his seat in the 90
th
Congress because the petitioner met all the qualified
requirements held in the Constitution. The Court decided that due to the Speech and Debate
Clause found in the Constitution, the petitioner was immune from suit. Also, the Court held that
the United States House of Representatives do not have authority to deny membership to any
person duly elected by his constituents.
REASONING
The Court’s decision to declare the House of Representatives seat refusal unconstitutional
comes from a few principles. The first principle is found in the Constitution under Articles I and
II. They discuss the qualifications one must meet in order to take a seat in Congress. Such
qualifications relate around the basis of how the election process works and the general set-up
of the Legislative and Presidency branches. The Congressman did in fact meet all the necessary
requirements that would qualify him for his seat in Congress. The House of Representatives has
the qualifying requirements and cannot punish a member who has qualified. The Congressman
took part in an act that was not defined or mentioned in the qualifications, therefore there is
nothing that can be done.

2. Megan James

2

The Court’s second decision for declaring this unconstitutional comes from the Speech and
Debate Clause (United States Constitution Article I Section 6, Clause I) states essentially that
Congressman are immune from law suits in Federal Courts. Because of this clause, the Court
can decide that when the House of Representatives originally brought the case to the lower
level court, the Congressman was immune from the allegations. The Court found that they did
in fact have jurisdiction because the case does arise under the questions of the Federal
Constitution, whether the Speech and Debate Clause is in effect as well as whether Articles I
and II were adequately met.
Concurring Opinion: Justice Douglas joined the concurring opinion stating how significant it was
that the House of Representative not exclude on the basis outside the stated qualifications.
Dissenting Opinion: Justice Stewart dissented the decision on the grounds the case should be
considered moot and be dismissed. He also believed the petitioner had an adequate amount of
money to pay back the back pay he owed, making this insignificant.
IMPORTANCE
The importance of Powell v. McCormack frames around the idea of fairness in the Legislative
Branch. The United States government relies heavily on elections and the election process and
this is an example of the Court getting involved in another branch of government. I believe this
case was significant in showing the House of Representatives the limits its power has. Even
though the law states the House can vote out a Congressman with a 2/3 majority vote, in this
particular instance the rules became altered. This case shows a Congressman acting
inappropriately with funds but according to the Constitution, the Congressman cannot be
punished. The case shows the need for corruption free government, but also emphasizes the
importance of elections and the election process.