Ex Parte Grossman

Background

Philip Grossman, a Chicago business owner accused of selling liquor in violation of the National Prohibition Act, was served with a federal injunction and then found to have sold liquor on his premises. A federal judge convicted him of criminal contempt, sentenced him to one year in jail and fined him $1,000. The President later commuted the jail term to the fine on condition it be paid; Grossman paid the fine and was released, but a lower court later tried to enforce the original jail sentence, prompting Grossman to seek relief from this Court.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the President’s constitutional power to grant "reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States" includes criminal contempts of federal courts. Looking to English common law, the Constitutional Convention record, prior Supreme Court decisions, and long executive practice, the Court concluded that criminal contempts fall within the pardon power. The opinion explained that civil contempts are remedial for the private party’s benefit, while criminal contempts are punitive in the public interest, and held that the latter are "offences" that the President may pardon. The Court rejected the argument that allowing such pardons would unduly undermine judicial independence, noting political and constitutional checks like impeachment and public accountability.

Real world impact

The ruling validates presidential pardons of punitive contempt sentences and requires Grossman’s discharge. It affects how federal courts enforce orders and preserves an executive check to correct or temper summary judicial punishment.